HRA Appendix B Responses to all consultation comments ...... · Forewind Document Reference F-OFC-RP-002 Appendix B Issue Number 1 Date August 2013 Drafted by Royal Haskoning DHV

August 2013

HRA Appendix B Responses to all consultation comments received and related comments and response Application Reference: 5.2

DOGGER BANK CREYKE BECK

F-OFC-RP-002 Appendix B _1 © 2013 Forewind HRA Appendix B Page ii


F-OFC-RP-002 Appendix B _1 © 2013 Forewind HRA Appendix B Page iii

Document Title Dogger Bank Creyke Beck

HRA Appendix B

Responses to all consultation comments received and related comments and response

Forewind Document Reference F-OFC-RP-002 Appendix B

Issue Number 1

Date August 2013

Drafted by Royal Haskoning DHV

Checked by Peter Thornton

Date / initials check PT 16-Aug-13

Approved by Adam Pharaoh

Date / initials approval AMP 20-Aug-13

Forewind Approval FAC

Date / Reference approval FAC Meeting 20-Aug-2013


F-OFC-RP-002 Appendix B _1 © 2013 Forewind HRA Appendix B Page iv

Title: Dogger Bank Creyke Beck HRA Appendix B Responses to all consultation comments received and related comments and response

Contract No. (if applicable) Offshore

Document Number: F-OFC-RP-002 Appendix B

Issue No: 1

Issue Date: 20-Aug-13

Status: Issued for 1st. Technical Review Issued for 2nd. Technical Review

Issued for PEI3 Issued for DCO

Prepared by:

Royal Haskoning DHV (Peter Thornton)

Checked by: (SB/TR) Sophie Barrel

Approved by: Adam Pharaoh

Signature / Approval (Forewind)

Gareth Lewis

Approval Date: 21-Aug-2013

Revision History

Date Issue No. Remarks / Reason for Issue Author Checked Approved

20-Aug-13 1 Final submission PT AMP AMP


F-OFC-RP-002 Appendix B _1 HRA Appendix B Page 1 © 2013 Forewind

Table B1 Response to JNCC and Natural England‟s comments (see Appendix A) on the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck HRA Screening Report (see HRA Report Appendix A)

Comment Where and how comments have been addressed

Marine Mammals - The SACs that were then screened out for further consideration in the HRA process in Table 5.4 and 6.1 were the Moray Firth SAC and The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC. Whilst we consider the exclusion of the Moray Firth SAC to be reasonable (noting that bottlenose dolphin still require assessment under European Protected Species licensing), the only other SAC to be screened out was The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC based on data presented in Appendix G. This concluded that based on the 24 harbour seals tagged between 2003 and 2005, only a single animal had been found within the windfarm site. However, the report also notes the recent tagging of 25 harbour seals within The Wash in January 2012 as part of a DECC funded study into the impact of pile driving on seal behaviour. These data are currently being analysed by the Sea Mammal Research Unit but were not available for inclusion in this report. It would be beneficial to include this more recent data within the assessment process before screening out The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC from the HRA process to provide the further context of harbour seal movement in relation to the windfarm site.

Figure 4.41 in Chapter 14 Marine Mammals of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES presents results of the harbour seal tagging, which were considered in the screening exercise. However, given the very low use of the area (as shown in this data and the baseline surveys) this confirmed the decision to screen out harbour seal from appropriate assessment.

Marine Mammals - We also advise that insufficient information has been provided in the HRA Screening Document to support the conclusion of no Likely Significant Effect on Harbour Seal from all works and the decision to scope harbour seal out of the HRA for all SACs. Further information should be provided including context for the species; the 2012 data identified above; data and references for information presented, particularly page 132, paragraph 6.3.34; and project information including noise contours for the array and any landfall works.

As noted above, the range of influence of the most disturbing works (piling) only extend into the edge of if not outside the foraging range of the harbour seals associated with the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC (see Section 6.2 in Chapter 14 of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES).

Bird foraging ranges - JNCC and Natural England notes the decision to use the maximum foraging range of breeding seabirds to determine which breeding seabird SPAs should be scoped in for further consideration as part of the Habitats Regulations Assessment. Statutory Nature Conservation Body (SNCB) advice provided to other offshore windfarm developers has generally been to use mean maximum foraging ranges for the purposes of HRA scoping, except in circumstances where an alternative approach is more appropriate e.g. site-specific data.

In order to consider the worst case scenario, maximum foraging ranges have been considered for many species and mean maximum for some species (see Section 6 of this report).

Physical Characteristics, Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Processes General - Statements and evidence provided should be supported by a suitable reference. In a number of cases the reference wasn‟t provided for instance 4.4.4 Flamborough Front.

Referencing has been provided where relevant throughout this document.

P 14; 3.3.1 - The scour protection recognised here as a potential key component of the development should be related to cables and all infrastructure, not just the turbine foundations.

Where applicable to the determination of impacts, the potential use of scour protection has been assumed.




P 16; S 4.2 - The „Physical Characteristics, Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport Processes‟ does not identify coastal processes, particularly the rapid erosion of the Holderness coast, the sediment transport processes nor the dependency of habitats on these processes. This matter should be addressed in detail. This should consider:

designated sites north and south of the project and their dependency upon the processes;

potential for infrastructure to interrupt the erosion or sediment transport processes.

potential for buried infrastructure to become exposed and interrupt the processes; require additional rock protection; or maintenance works.

Further detail on the effect of the proposed works on coastal processes and sediment transport, particularly in the nearshore zone and in the vicinity of the landfall is provided in paragraphs 3.2.11 to 3.2.22 of this report.

General - The assessment of impacts, particularly with regard to the cable route should include the maintenance aspects such as:

repeated damage and disturbance to benthic via maintenance works either directly or through raised suspended sediment concentration;

exposure of buried cables or other infrastructure;

requirement for additional protection.

The full operational assessment incorporates maintenance and these elements, where relevant, in Section 4 of this report.

General - Natural England would appreciate more specific details and maps which illustrate the cable route and landfall, particularly with regard to the designated sites at Flamborough Head.

See Figure 3.1 of this report.

P18; 4.2.13 - States „the cables will likely be buried at shallow depths depending on localised seabed conditions‟. The cables should be buried at depths most suitable for reducing environmental impact. For example, the depths should be sufficient to ensure that infrastructure will not prevent natural coastal and marine processes; will not become exposed; and will not require any rock protection. Evidence should be provided to demonstrate that the cable burial depth is sufficient to prevent the above.

Details of the cable installation techniques are provided in Chapter 5 of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES.

P18 S4.2.17 - Identifies that the „tidal streams run parallel to the coast and are generally north south during flood tide and south to north during the ebb tide.‟ This point should be considered regarding coastal processes; the habitats dependent upon these processes; and the potential for impacts upon processes and habitats both north and south of the development, cable route and landfall. For example the potential for the export cable to affects sediment supply to habitats to the north and south.

Further details are provided on this issue in paragraphs 3.2.11 to 3.2.22 of this report and in Chapter 9 Marine Physical Processes of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES.

P 19 S4.3.3 - States that „suspended sediment concentration data along the export cable is limited.‟ Please provide more information on this matter, as Natural England advise that information, particularly in the near shore coastal areas should be readily available.

Further data is presented in Section 4.3 of this report.




4.6.21 - States that with regard to Harbour Seals „the Hi-Def aerial surveys detected harbour seals in four of the twenty survey months.‟ Please present the months and relative numbers that were recorded as well as the survey parameters.

Further information is presented in Section 4 in Chapter 14 of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES and in paragraphs 3.2.40 and 3.2.43 of this report.

P 45 Section 5 - Natural England appreciates the scale of the task of identifying designated sites which could be affected by the Dogger Bank development and understand the staged approach taken and we advise that more clarity and evidence is provided. It is not clear in the very early screening/scoping how sites were identified to be scoped out, or not considered. It would be beneficial to have a list of all sites that were scoped out, or not considered from the outset.

An initial view was taken that potential effects would be likely to be restricted to the greater North Sea region. Screening was undertaken on this basis. Additionally, the approach adopted in the Round 3 screening process was also considered. The approach is described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the HRA Screening Report (see HRA Report Appendix A) and the tables presented in those sections. Subsequent to screening, consideration has also been given to SPAs and Ramsar sites in the UK and Ireland that support migratory waterbird populations that may pass through the Dogger Bank Zone on migration. This is detailed in Sections 6.6 and 7.7 of this report.

P 45 Section 5 - The scoping must consider both the feature and the designated site itself, for example, consideration of the Humber Estuary SPA must consider the bird interest features and the potential interruption of sediment transport processes which support the SPA site. It is noted that the consideration of SPAs considers only the ornithological feature and does not include the site itself. This matter should be re-visited in detail.

Apart from works in the nearshore environment where coastal sediment transport processes could be influenced, there are no other impact pathways through which supporting habitats in SPA / Ramsar sites could be affected. Consideration is given to the influence of nearshore cabling and landfall works on coastal processes and the influence that any changes may have on SPA supporting habitats in paragraphs 3.2.11 to 3.2.22 of this report. Further information on physical processes is provided in Chapter 9 of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES.




P 45 S 5.1.2 - States „the site identification process is based on an examination of the capacity of the likely effects of the proposed development to influence the ecological features for which European Sites have been designated.‟ While this statement is relevant with regard to ecological, many European Sites have been identified for habitats such as mudflats which are supported by physical processes, which must be considered. Additionally, the project has the potential to affect habitats which are not interest features of the site, but which support the ecological interest features. For example, the mudflat habitats which support ornithological interests within SPAs. It is important that all these factors are recognised and outlined at the outset and as such paragraph 5.1.2 should be revisited.

See response above.

P 46 Effects on Physical Processes and Water Quality, Pt 2 - States „changes in suspended sediment concentrations resulting from offshore wind farm construction work have been shown to be typically within the range that naturally occurs due to the physical effects of waves and tidal currents (ABPmer et al 2010).‟ Please provide greater detail on the changes in suspended sediment concentration with regard to the background concentrations. It is noted that the SSC increases in the coastal region, therefore any assessment should clearly outline the spatial variability of the background levels. Any comparison of construction phase SSC and background SSC should also consider variety across seasons.

Further background information regarding suspended sediment concentrations in the Dogger Bank Zone is presented in Section 4.2 of this report, and further details are available in Section 4 of Chapter 9 of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES.

P 47 Effects on Fish, Pt 3 - States, „a significant, prolonged and widespread increase in SSC may impair respiratory or reproductive functions of sensitive fish species, including disruption of migration/ spawning (ABP research, 1997).‟ It is not clear how this specifically relate to the habitats regulation assessment – for example which specific sites and features is this likely to be an issue? Please provide greater detail on the thresholds of SSC over time which are considered likely to have the above described effects on relevant fish species.

Effects on fish as a prey species are considered in Section 6 of this report, and further information is provided in support of impacts on fish within Chapter 13 Fish and Shellfish Ecology of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES.

P 47 Effects on Birds - Considers that effects on birds from export landfall construction activities will be „short term in duration and transitory in nature. Significant impacts on coastal species are not anticipated to arise‟. Further detail should be provided on the landfall works, particularly with regard to noise generation. In addition, information to demonstrate SPA bird usage of the landfall area should be provided.

Bird usage (baseline environment) and effects on birds as a result of the landfall works are assessed in Section 6 of this report.

P 48 Offshore – During Operation - All consideration of operation impacts should clearly define and assess maintenance activities. Each section should be revisited to include this.

The effects of maintenance activities are described in Section 4 of this report, and assessed as an inclusive component of operational activities in relation to all European sites and features in the relevant sections that follow (Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this report).




P 48 Offshore – During Operation. Effects on: Physical Processes and Water Quality - The document does not identify any potential operation effects of the export cable and as such this section should be revisited in detail. As previously stated detailed consideration should be given to the potential for:

Interruption of sediment processes particularly by rock protection for the offshore export cable or the landfall area;

the export cable to become exposed both offshore or at the coast and interrupt processes and/or require rock protection;

maintenance works.

The influence of the landfall and inshore cable on physical processes and the extent of rock protection are described in Chapter 9 of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES and paragraphs 3.2.11 to 3.2.22 of this report.

P 49 Offshore during operation – Effects on Fish - The document identifies loss of habitat supporting fish species, from the installation of turbine bases, but does not extend this to the export cable and potential rock protection. Impacts on habitat supporting fish species can occur across the entire project and should form part of the HRA process, if only to allow SAC sites and fish species to be screened out.

The majority of the export cable corridor is located outside of European sites, with the exception of the Dogger Bank cSAC. Consideration has been given to habitat alteration for prey species in the assessment in Section 6 of this report.

P 50 Operation – Effects on marine mammals - The comments made on page 50 appear to contradict themselves, by highlighting potential effects of operational noise on marine mammals while also stating these are unlikely. Please provide further detail on whether and how this HRA intends to consider this issue for all marine mammals.

The assessment of noise on marine mammals is fully detailed in Section 5 of this report.

P 51 Operation – Effects on Marine Mammals - As stated above, operation must consider maintenance works. This should also include but not be limited to disturbance and collision with vessels during operational activities.

See response above re P48 Offshore – During Operation.

P 51 Operation – Effects on Marine Mammals - Natural England notes the comments made in Point 2 regarding electro-magnetic fields, however the conclusion of this discussion is unclear. Please outline how topic will be assessed and mitigated in the HRA or EIA.

The assessment of EMF on marine mammals is fully detailed in Section 5 of this report.




P 51 Offshore – Decommissioning Effects on Benthic Habitats and Communities - Natural England note the intention to leave intertidal cables permanently in-situ after decommissioning and the potential requirement for remedial action „should any substantial coastal retreat occur, beyond the predicted design envelope‟. As previously raised, the Holderness coast is rapidly eroding with both cliff retreat and foreshore lowering which will increase the risk and likelihood of infrastructure becoming exposed. As also raised, the sediment generated from this erosion is essential to designated sites. Infrastructure has the potential to interrupt both erosion and sediment transport processes which must be considered during both the operational and decommissioning phases. The potential for secondary effects upon the European designated sites must also be considered. Sufficient detail will be required to undertake this assessment including the extent of cable to be left in-situ; suitable modelling and prediction of erosion rates; demonstration that the cable is buried at a depth suitable to prevent exposure and that it can be removed if required. Assessment for the potential for the infrastructure to affect erosion processes and to interrupt sediment processes into the future.

The assessment has considered the worst case scenario which entails the removal of all buried cable within the subtidal zone. The location of landfall infrastructure and the installation methodology has taken into account predicted erosion rates at Holderness. Landfall infrastructure during the operational lifetime of the project would not affect coastal processes and decommissioning would ensure that this situation would remain.

P 53 5.3.4 - Onshore activities and effects - Natural England note that only Hornsea Mere is referred to and we would expect this section to also refer to the Humber Estuary SPA. Also, section 5.3.7 refers to Hornsea Mere as being approximately 10km east of the cable corridor, however based on internal mapping it appears to be approximately 6.5km.

Distance of corridor to Hornsea Mere is noted, see paragraph 3.2.7 of this report. Reference is also made to the Humber Estuary SPA in this paragraph.

P 54 5.4; P 59 5.5.7 - It is difficult to relate the discussion in each section to the designated sites which have then been scoped in or out as a result of the discussion and conclusions. It would be beneficial to include a list or table after each section, or a paragraph reference and brief discussion within Table 5.4 to make this link and improve the evidence base. For instance 5.5.7 concludes that „potential risk from the effects of sediment mobilisation and re-deposition‟ may occur to a distance of „30km from the export cable corridor‟. But the sites then scoped in or out on the basis of this are not then presented. Even Table 5.4 which scope in the Flamborough Head SAC Reef features, does not reference or summarise the previous discussion (5.5.7) or give a clear evidence for scoping in FH SAC. No information is provided regarding sites that have been scoped out. It is recommended that the presentation of information is revisited to bring clarity and evidence to the conclusions presented.

The provision of the distances of the sites from the works (in Table 5.4 of this report) support the conclusion presented in the table regarding which sites have been screened in or out. Overall it should be noted that only two sites (supporting habitats or species which may be affected by sediment transport related processes and change) lie within the potential area of disturbance and hence are screened in. These are Dogger Bank cSAC and Flamborough Head SAC.




P 59 5.5.6 and 5.5.7 - The information presented is insufficient for providing a clear basis for the conclusion that there is potential risk to habitats from sediments 30km from the export cable route and further clarity and references should be provided. For instance, the discussion initially refers to depositional footprint for „fine sediment‟, „under optimal tidal conditions‟ that is „effectively restricted to 200m‟. But in considering re-suspension the distance could be „considerably greater‟. The following paragraph concludes that sediment movement should be considered over „over 3 tidal excursions (ie allowing for re-suspension of sediment)‟ concluding that there is risk from deposition up to 30km from the cable route. Flamborough Head (approximately 5km from the cable route) which may be affected by SSC from the cable route has been scoped in, in Table 5.4 and Table 6.1 (for likely significant effect) which Natural England agree with, given the amount of detail currently available. However, the basis of how the 30km buffer zone was concluded was not clear and we would welcome greater detail and discussion of this point. Particularly as this will affect how benthic is addressed in the EIA.

The 30km buffer zone was determined by the consideration of sediment suspension and deposition and the distance over which this would extend based on three tidal excursions, as detailed in paragraphs 5.5.5 and 5.5.6 in the HRA Screening Report (HRA Report Appendix A). This distance represented the potential worst case extent of suspended sediment concentration (SSC) increases and sediment deposition. This has been modelled and conclusions as to the worst case SSC and deposition are presented in Section 4 of this report.

P 58 5.5 Changes in Hydro-dynamic Regime - The assessment has not recognised the potential for the export cable or any associated rock protection to affect the Hydrodynamic Regime and particularly the sediment transport processes. Prior to scoping out any designated sites, information should be provided coastal and marine processes and the sediment dependency of each of the sites. Project details, the potential to interrupt these processes and potential effects on the sites also should be assessed.

See response given previously.

P 60 5.5.14 - Natural England advises that bats are known to migrate long distances as such this matter should be addressed in more detail in consultation with Natural England before scoping out.

Effects on SACs designated for bat populations were screened out due to the ecology of the species involved. See paragraph 3.2.8 of this report.

P 61 5.5.20 - States „River lamprey are fully estuarine or freshwater species and do not undertake migration through marine waters.‟ Please provide the reference for the above statement. We highlight that the JNCC website states that „The river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis is found in coastal waters, estuaries and accessible rivers.‟). Insufficient information has been provided on the construction phase export cable and landfall works, or the presence of River Lamprey to support the scoping out of River Lamprey at this stage.

Further information and discussion regarding river lamprey is presented in paragraphs 3.2.23 to 3.2.35 of this report.

P 130 6.3.25 / 6.3.26 Collision Risk - Please provide further information to demonstrate the collision risk to Harbour and Grey Seal. The information provided is not referenced, nor is it related to the development locations. Collision risk should also be related to maintenance and operation, as well as construction. Both Harbour Seal and Grey Seal should remain scoped in until collision risk is sufficiently addressed.

Collision risk is considered in the assessment presented in Section of this report.




P 133 6.3.42 - We note the reference that „available data suggest that large proportions of Scottish multi-sea winter (MSW) salmon are likely to be present in West Greenland and Faroe‟. What other locations were identified by the data, particularly where these locations may be relevant to the Dogger Bank export cable or zone.

See reference to Malcolm et al. (2010) presented in the HRA Screening Report (HRA Report Appendix A).

P 134 6.3.45 and Figure 631 - Please provide an updated Figure 6.1 which illustrates the spawning population of Twaite Shad and the Dogger Bank Zone, and the Creyke Beck Export Cable. The current figure is small and it appears feasible that the Twaite Shad population could be within or adjacent to the Dogger Bank Zone. Further information is required on this matter and to support the conclusion of no LSE on Twaite Shad.

Further information and discussion regarding twaite shad is presented in paragraphs 3.2.23 to 3.2.35 of this report.

P 135 6.3.51 - States „Dogger Bank would appear to lie north ..... of southern north sea occupied by spawning populations of twaite shad and allis shad. As outlined above, greater certainty is required before scoping this matter out.

Further information and discussion regarding twaite and allis shad is presented in paragraphs 3.2.23 to 3.2.35 of this report.

P 135 6.3.53 - As outlined above, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that twaite shad will not be present or affected by the dogger bank zone or cable works and as such further clarity is required.

Further information and discussion regarding twaite shad is presented in paragraphs 3.2.23 to 3.2.35 of this report.

P 135 6.3.53 - In support of the conclusion of no LSE upon SAC fish species, we request further information of the construction and operational works for the export cable and landfall, particularly rock protection and any noise generation.

Further information and discussion regarding migratory fish species is presented in paragraphs 3.2.23 to 3.2.35 of this report.

P 136 6.3.54 Point 1 - The conclusions drawn in this paragraph are insufficiently supported and referenced to be suitable for concluding no LSE on Sea Lamprey. Therefore, Sea Lamprey should not be scoped out of the HRA, or further information should be provided to support the statements made.

Further information and discussion regarding sea lamprey is presented in paragraphs 3.2.23 to 3.2.35 of this report.

P 136 6.3.54 Point 2 - This paragraph while ruling out construction phase mortality of sea lamprey does not address construction noise and the potential for killing individuals present in the area. In addition, please provide the evidence to support the statement „even if prey species were displaced from an area affected by increased noise levels, the capacity for sea lamprey to locate and utilise the available prey resource would not be diminished.‟

Further information and discussion regarding sea lamprey is presented in paragraphs 3.2.23 to 3.2.35 of this report.

P 136 6.3.55 and 6.3.56 - For the reasons outlined above, Natural England at this stage advises that further information should be provided to conclude no likely significant effect upon the identified SAC fish features. As such, Natural England advise that further information is also required to allow assessment and conclusion of in-combination effects.

Further information and discussion regarding migratory fish species is presented in paragraphs 3.2.23 to 3.2.35 of this report.




P 140 Table 6.1 - Natural England have not made specific comments on Table 6.1 where comments above already highlight that qualifying features, or designated sites should be scoped in, or further information required to support the conclusion of no likely significant effect. As such an updated Table 6.1 should be provided on the basis of the above comments.

Further clarification regarding sites and their features screened in to the appropriate stage in this report are presented in Section 3 of this report.

P 244 7.1.2 - Natural England advise that the HRA in-combination assessment consider the following, particularly points a and e which are not part of the scope provided in 7.1.2.

a. Existing completed projects

b. Approved but uncompleted projects.

c. Ongoing activities

d. Plans or projects for which an application has been made and which are under consideration by the consenting authorities

e. Plans and projects which are reasonably foreseeable, i.e. projects for which an application has not yet been submitted, but which are likely to progress before completion of the development and for which sufficient information is available to assess the likelihood of cumulative and in-combination effects.

Section 3 and Section 7 of this report describe the approach to in-combination assessment and the projects considered.

P 245 7.2.1 - As indicated in 7.2.1 the in-combination assessment must consider all aspects of the project, including those which alone are considered to have no likely significant effect. As when combined with other plans or projects may demonstrate an overall cumulative or in-combination effect. As such, detailed scoping for the cumulative assessment must be undertaken and Natural England would welcome continued consultation on this.

All elements of the projects that have a measurable effect are considered in the in-combination assessment, presented in Section 7 of this report.

P 246 7.2.4 - As previously advised, the potential for the export cable to affect sediment transport processes should be addressed in the HRA. As such, this matter should also be considered in the in-combination assessment. Including any secondary effects on supporting habitats and designated sites or features which may then be scoped into the HRA in-combination assessment as a result.

See response earlier.




Breeding Birds

4.5.19 - Natural England notes the comments in this section regarding northern fulmar at Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs. Natural England is currently reviewing the current site boundary, interest features and reference populations of this Special Protection Area (SPA) to determine whether any changes are needed to meet the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, taking scientific advice from JNCC. This may mean that in the future Natural England will seek to re-classify the SPA following a formal consultation process. This means that the site boundary, interest features (i.e. whether seabird species qualify in their own right, are named components of the assemblage or simply part of the seabird assemblage) and reference populations for the SPA could change in the near future. These changes would need to be reflected in the assessment of this proposal‟s impacts on the SPA (or pSPA if the revised site is subject to formal consultation but not re-classified.).

The assessment work provided in the ornithology technical report (Appendix 11A of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck ES) and this report (see Section 6 of this report) use the existing designation criteria for the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, with consideration of latest population data. If changes to the SPA are forthcoming during the application process for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck then Forewind will liaise with Natural England to consider the implications for the assessment work undertaken.

4.5.25, 4.5.39, 4.5.48, 4.5.65, 4.5.69, 4.5.76 - Please see our comments above regarding our review of the Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA, as these also have a bearing on the sections about the following species: northern gannet, black-legged kittiwake, herring gull, common guillemot, razorbill and Atlantic puffin.

See above response.

4.5.77/5.5.47-49 - Natural England notes the decision to use the maximum foraging range of breeding seabirds to determine which breeding seabird SPAs should be scoped in for further consideration as part of the Habitats Regulations Assessment. Statutory Nature Conservation Body (SNCB) advice provided to other offshore windfarm developers has generally been to use mean maximum foraging ranges for the purposes of HRA scoping, except in circumstances where an alternative approach is more appropriate e.g. site-specific data. We consider the use of mean maxima as being generally suitable, due to variations in colony-specific maxima, but acknowledge that there may be grounds for using maxima instead, particularly bearing in mind the recent results of the Future of the Atlantic Marine Environment (FAME) project. Natural England also notes that the Dogger Bank Zone lies outwith the current mean maximum foraging range for all UK SPAs supporting breeding common guillemot/razorbill/Atlantic puffin, and yet Appendix C provides data indicating that these three species are present within the Zone during the breeding season. A review of survey data from the site to identify evidence of auks carrying fish and also their flight direction (if such data were recorded) has the potential to provide some indicative, albeit anecdotal, information regarding whether the auks observed during the breeding season are associated with SPA colonies. Natural England and JNCC would welcome the opportunity to meet with Forewind to discuss the use of „best available evidence‟ regarding foraging ranges in the context of the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) process, and the most appropriate approach to take on a species-by-species basis. Such a discussion would help delineate the most appropriate approach to screening in and out particular SPAs and also look forward to the future consideration of „likely significant effect‟ for those SPAs which are screened in.

The issue of the use of maximum foraging ranges is discussed in the ornithology technical report (Appendix 11A of the ES and Section 6 of this report).




5.2. Effects on Birds - The following additional impacts may need consideration in the context of breeding seabird SPAs:

Habitat change resulting from turbine bases and cable protection may result in changes to fish community composition and affect food resources for seabirds.

Exclusion of fishing from areas may also affect fish community composition, both within the exclusion area and where fishing activity is displaced to, and therefore food resources for seabirds.

The effects of habitat alteration and loss and subsequent alteration to prey species are presented in the assessment in Section 6 of this report.

Table 5.5 - Please note that JNCC/Natural England is still considering how the screening process has dealt with SPAs classified for migratory waterbird populations and potential impacts on SPA seabird colonies outside of the breeding season (including seabirds on migration), and will respond in the near future regarding these issues.

Draft guidance produced by JNCC/NE has been considered in the assessment on migratory waterbirds and seabirds outside the breeding season in Section 6 of this report.

Table 5.5 - Coquet Island SPA – common tern should be screened in for further assessment. Noted. No LSE for common tern has been determined for all SPAs / Ramsar sites included in the assessment process.

Table 5.5 - Farne Islands SPA –as set out in the 2001 SPA Review (Stroud et al) black-legged kittiwake, European shag and cormorant are named components of the SPA‟s internationally important seabird assemblage but are not qualifying species of the SPA in their own right. Nevertheless, we agree that the correct species have been screened in for further assessment.

These species have been considered in the assessment in Section 6 of this report.

Table 5.5 - Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA – as per the 2001 SPA Review, only black-legged kittiwake is a feature of the SPA in its own right. Northern fulmar, northern gannet, common guillemot, razorbill and Atlantic puffin are all currently named components of the internationally important seabird assemblage (as is herring gull), but are not qualifying species in their own right. We agree that these species should be screened in for further assessment.

These species have been considered in the assessment in Section 6 of this report.

Table 6.1 - Coquet Island SPA – we question the statement that the Dogger Bank Zone is „significantly outside the maximum range of puffin‟. The current maximum recorded foraging range for Atlantic puffin is 200km: the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck „A‟ site is 209km from Coquet Island and Dogger Bank Creyke Beck „B‟ is only 195km. This also contradicts paragraph 5.5.51, which states that „Coquet Island, at approximately 200km from Dogger Bank Creyke Beck are sufficiently close to indicate that foraging from these sites may occur‟. As noted above, Natural England would be pleased to discuss the use of „best available evidence‟ on foraging ranges in the context of HRA.

The Atlantic puffin population associated with the Coquet Island SPA is considered as being within the maximum foraging range of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and has been treated as such in the assessment (see Section 6 of this report).




Table 6.1 - Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast SPA – the Holderness Coast has a critical role in supplying sediment to the Humber Estuary. As the construction and in particular the operation of the export cable has the potential to influence sediment transport along the Holderness Coast, the export cable should be „screened in‟ for consideration of likely significant effect, to ensure its potential effects on the Humber Flats, Marshes and Coast SPA (as well as the Humber SAC) are assessed.

See above response regarding no interruption to sediment transport as a result of the export cable or landfall works.



Table B2 Response to comments on the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck draft HRA Screening Report

Ref. Comment Where and how comments have been addressed

HRA General Overview

JNCC / NE

O1

O1 – General overview. The chosen structure can make it difficult to follow the decisions made regarding LSE and integrity. The use of two large Appendixes to document the outcomes of the screening for LSE and the integrity test coupled with the main document‟s tendency to summarise impacts for particular issues (e.g. migratory waterbirds) can at times affect the reader‟s ability to readily trace the conclusions of the HRA for individual SPA qualifying features.

The structure was chosen to try and deal with the very large number of European sites, particularly SPAs and Ramsar sites screened into the HRA process. Further subdivision of the report has been undertaken to provide greater clarity in following the decisions on LSE and AA reached and the two large appendices for screening have been combined into one table (see Appendix C of this report).

JNCC / NE

O1

O1 – General overview. This structure does not allow an assessment of multiple impacts on the same receptor, making it harder to determine potential impacts from displacement + collision + barrier effects on a given receptor at the cumulative scale.

Assessment of cumulative impacts on ornithological receptors is provided in Section 6.7 of this report.

JNCC / NE

O1

O1 – General overview. Combine the outputs of Appendices A and C into a single document? Furthermore we suggest that it is made clear in the summary tables presented in Appendix B the stage at which a qualifying feature was assessed – be that LSE or AA.

A single table providing the outputs of the LSE screening process that identifies the stage at which a qualifying feature was assessed and provides the LSE outcome is now provided in Appendix C of this report.




Physical processes and geomorphology

JNCC / NE

O 1.1

Main advice

3.2.17 – 3.2.22 (p.39-40): Natural England does not currently support the conclusion to scope out the impacts of export cable protection to barrier effects of sediment transport. The assessment conclusion lacks adequate information and evidence of the long-term sediment transportation impacts to the integrity of the Humber Estuary SAC. Further information is required in order to fully consider the worst case scenario, please refer to comments provided for chapter 9.

Linear cable protection has been considered in the assessment, where it constitutes the worst case for the impact in question. This is in line with the worst case approach taken to the whole environmental assessment for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. As discussed in the June 2013 workshop with JNCC, Natural England, MMO and Cefas, Forewind will undertake post-installation survey work to confirm the need for any form of cable protection and in what quantities.

Further information assessing the potential effects from rock armouring along the export cable corridor has been added into Chapter 9 of the ES (see Section 7.5) and in Section 3 of this report (paragraphs 3.16 to 3.30). Based on this assessment work it is considered that rock armouring, if utilised, would not influence long-term sediment transport dynamics such that an impact on the designated habitat features of the Humber Estuary SAC would arise (see Section 3 of this report).

This assessment is based on the fact that burial of the export cable is the preferred solution. See also Chapter 5 of the ES, Section 3.10.

Annex I Designated Habitats

JNCC / NE

O 1.2

Main advice

Natural England notes that until the Annex I habitat pre-construction survey has been completed the impacts to potential Annex I habitats (in the form of Mytilus edulis biotope reef and cobble reef) are unknown. In particular the habitat loss from the inshore export cable route could be an indirect impact to the integrity of the Mytilus edulis habitat supporting the Flamborough Head SAC, which should be assessed in the HRA.

Forewind confirm that an Annex I Habitat pre-construction survey will be undertaken. The potential for impacts on this habitat to result in indirect impacts on the Flamborough Head SAC are fully considered in the final ES

Annex II Migratory species




JNCC / NE

O 1.3

Main advice

General: The impacts of cable protection are briefly mentioned in regards to the loss of habitat. Due to corresponding advice from Natural England in chapter 9 regarding linear protection in the Holderness Coast the assessment of cable protection should be addressed. If alternative cable burial techniques are proposed these should be adequately assessed in terms of impacts of SSCs and EMFs on prey species and migration routes. We request further information on the construction and operational work of the export cable route and landfall.

See comments made above in respect of O 1.1.

JNCC / NE

O 1.3

Main advice

8.2.12 (p.452): The conclusions drawn for no LSE with respect to SACs for Annex II migratory fish are insufficiently supported and referenced, see below for details:

Although it is concluded that there are no designated SACs for which allis and twaite shad are qualifying features there is evidence of both species of shad found within the fish assemblage of this area (1.1.1, p.5 of chapter 13 Appendix B). Both species are reported to occur in coastal waters (4.10.15, p.123 of chapter 13) and are known to be supported by the Humber Estuary SAC. Despite there being a lack of evidence for migration routes it is likely that these Annex II species occur within the Dogger Bank export cable corridor area. Natural England do not support the decision to scope out both allis and twaite shad due to a lack of information and emphasise that the migratory route of these species should not be impacted by cable burial routes or EMF. Further consideration of this species is required in the ES before it is possible to conclude no LSE.

There is no justification for the scoping out of River lamprey despite evidence that part of their life is within coastal waters (4.10.4. p.117, chapter 13). Transformation into adulthood is followed my several years in the marine environment before returning to freshwater to spawn (4.10.4, p.117, chapter 13). It is therefore possible if not likely that these Annex II species occur within the Dogger Bank export cable corridor area and greater consideration to impacts from cable routes and EMF is required before they can be confidently scoped out, especially given the evidence of their sensitivity to EMF (table 7.5 and 7.6, p 200, chapter 13). Natural England do not support the decision to scope out River lamprey due to a lack of information and emphasise that the migratory route of these species should not be impacted by cable burial routes or EMFs. Further consideration of this species is required in the ES before it is possible to conclude no LSE.

The lack of evidence for specific adult migration routes is not sufficient to support the scoping out of Sea Lamprey. Natural England notes that the distribution of sea lamprey is largely dictated by the location of their host, that they may be solitary feeders and are largely dispersed at sea and therefore have the potential to transit the export cable corridor and/or Creyke Beck A and B (4.10.6-7, p.118, chapter 13). It is therefore unclear why it is

Full reasons for the screening out of Annex II migratory fish populations are presented in Section 3 of this report. On the basis of the available information regarding the distribution of the relevant species, their biology and the location of the appropriate designated SACs, it is considered that there is justification for determining LSE in respect of twaite shad, allis shad, Atlantic salmon, sea lamprey and river lamprey.




concluded that the works would not constitute a LSE to this species. Natural England asks for further information and justification before it is possible to conclude no LSE.

Annex 1 Designated Habitats Dogger Bank cSAC

JNCC / NE

O1.4

2.3.5. Offshore components and activities: JNCC note that that at the decommissioning stage it is expected that structures will be removed. Piled foundations would be removed to just below the seabed, scour protection around cables will be removed and in the worst case scenario cables will be removed. This assessment differs from the decommissioning scenario presented in chapter 5 of the draft ES. Chapter 5 of the draft ES states that “It may be preferable to leave any scour protection or subsea protection around turbine bases”, “it is envisioned that buried assets will be left in situ and that scour or subsea protection around turbine bases or covering cables to be left in situ”. JNCC seek clarification from Forewind over their intention to remove gravity bases, scour protection, other subsea protection and cables and expect this to be consistent throughout the ES and Appropriate Assessment information.

The project information presented in this report is now consistent with that presented in Chapter 5 of the ES and full information on the decommissioning scenario is summarised in this report, but for more detail refer to Chapter 5 of the ES.

JNCC / NE

O1.4

2.3.5. Offshore components and activities: JNCC does not consider protection of marine species sufficient justification for not removing infrastructure as these marine species are unlikely to be species typically characteristic of the Dogger Bank cSAC. Please refer to our earlier comments on draft ES chapter 5, Main concerns, and 6.7.12.

No longer reflected in the project description.

JNCC / NE

O1.4

2.6. Realistic worst case scenarios: In table 2.1 the realistic worst case scenario is presented. However Forewind have not considered sediment plumes caused by the movement and deposition of sediment within cSAC boundaries during seabed preparation (Chapter 5, 3.5.2.). Further to our comments on draft ES chapter 5 if Forewind are expecting to put sediment removed during seabed preparation back within the project boundaries then JNCC would expect to see these plume effects considered in the realistic worst case scenario presented within the Appropriate Assessment information.

The worst case scenario for the generation of sediment plumes during construction would be from the disposal of in situ drill arisings. Any effects and impacts associated with this activity would encompass any sediment plume generation associated with seabed preparation and can be used to represent a worst case in this instance.




JNCC / NE

O1.4

2.6. Realistic worst case scenarios: In table 2.1 the realistic worst case scenarios is presented. However JNCC question some of the values presented in this table, and thus the scenario taken forward into assessment. In operational phase table 2.6 states that the maximum footprint of permanent habitat loss assessed for 300 x gravity base foundations = 1.397km

2 (including scour protection). However in ES chapter 5, table 3.5 the maximum

seabed footprint for gravity base turbines = 1,735m2 (0.001735km

2) (300 turbines x

0.001735 area covered = 0.5202km2). In the ES chapter 5, table 3.8 the project footprint for

turbine scour protection for 300 4MW turbines = 1.13km2. Therefore the worst case total

project permanent habitat loss equals 1.13km2 + 0.5202km

2, giving a total of 1.6502km

2.

This value differs from that presented in table 2.1 in the Appropriate Assessment information. JNCC would like clarification on this matter so that we can have confidence that the worst case scenario presented in the Appropriate Assessment information is realistic and the correct values have been taken through into assessment.

The values used in the worst case scenario table have been cross-checked against those provided in other chapters of the ES to ensure consistency.

JNCC / NE

O1.4

3.3. Activities and effects screened into the Appropriate Assessment: Table 3.3 states in the operational phase that “Scour induced increase in suspended sediment concentrations in the water column, confined to the wind farm development as cable will be buried”. This is unclear and unrealistic. It is not clear if this statement relates to just the export cable or also all inter-array, inter-project, inter-platform cables as well. JNCC seek clarification on this matter. Furthermore the draft ES chapter 5, Offshore Cable burial (3.9.14) states: “The offshore cables will be buried wherever it is feasible to do so, with additional or alternative protection measures only applied if necessary”. Therefore it is an unrealistic expectation from the information provided that all of the export cable within the Dogger Bank cSAC boundaries, and / or all the inter-array, inter-project and inter-platform cables will also be buried. As many of the remedial cable protection measures being considered by Forewind are themselves subject to scour it is unrealistic to assume that scour induced sediment re-suspension will be confined to the wind farm. JNCC also seek clarification from Forewind over the ability to bury cables to the optimum depth (please refer to Annex D, Main Concerns, 4.22 & 4.23) and their cable protection worst case scenarios (please refer to Annex D).

This has been clarified and is now consistent with the project information presented in Chapter 5 of the ES.




JNCC / NE

O1.4

3.3 Activities and effects screened into the Appropriate Assessment: The construction and potentially the operational and decommissioning phases of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck have the potential to alter sediment characteristics through fining or coarsening of sediment. This could occur, either through the removal of sediment, or the addition of sediment originating outside the project area, for example the “installation of a stone or aggregate foundation bed” (ES Chapter 5, section 3.5.2). JNCC expect to see this impact included in table 2.1 and 3.3 and fully considered in the Appropriate Assessment information. Please refer back to our comments made in Annex G, Main Concerns, 5.5). JNCC advise removal of sediment from the cSAC is to be avoided as this could be regarded as permanent loss of habitat.

It is Forewind‟s intention to dispose of any material moved as part of seabed preparation works within the boundaries of the wind farm. To this end, a Disposal Site Characterisation Document has been produced to support the designation of the site as a disposal area during the construction of the project (Appendix 12J of the ES).

Any stone or aggregate foundation bed created as seabed preparation for foundations will be quickly covered by the foundation itself and hence the loss of habitat is considered under operational habitat loss assessment.

JNCC / NE

O1.4

7.2.2. Screening of other plans and projects for the assessment of in-combination effects: Please see main comments in relation to Environmental Statement Chapter 4, Appendix A Forewind Cumulative Impact Assessment Strategy Offshore.

Full information on the screening process for the in-combination assessment is presented in Section 7 of this report.

JNCC / NE

O1.4

4.2.72. Physical loss of subtidal sandbank communities: JNCC would like clarification from Forewind on how the figures presented in table 4.5 relate to those presented in table 2.1 of the Appropriate Assessment information and those figures presented throughout chapter 5 of the draft ES. We would like this information so we have confidence in the presented information and we welcome further discussion with Forewind on this...

The figures for subtidal sandbank loss presented in this report are derived from and consistent with those presented in Chapter 12 of the ES.




JNCC / NE

O1.4

JNCC note that following consultation with the fishing industry it is believed that fishing with certain methods are likely to resume within the windfarm and that precautionary safety zones of up to 50m could be in place around operational turbines (ES Chapter 15, section 8.1.6). Whilst this reduces fisheries displacement and potential competition for the same resource the act of trawling may reduce populations of fish and benthic organisms and results in physical damage to the seabed through abrasion. Vessel monitoring systems data confirms demersal trawling is occurring within the Dogger Bank cSAC and this activity is expected to have a significant effect on the habitats within Dogger Bank. Fisheries management measures for the Dogger Bank area have been proposed by the Dogger Bank Steering Group and are currently being further developed in light of ICES advice. Should demersal trawling continue to occur within the wind farm boundaries, it is likely that fishermen would have to fish in such a way that avoided the turbines and any hard structures such as cable protection on the seabed. The windfarm development is thus expected to alter fishing patterns, potentially displacing fishing activity both on a local scale (out of 50m exclusion zones and away from obstructions) and over a larger area (out of the windfarm site). Such displacement has inherently unpredictable effects and could result in localised increases in fishing pressure. JNCC are concerned that the localised increases in fishing pressure, within the windfarm zone could impact on site integrity and result in the features recovery being impaired and the conservation objectives not being achieved. JNCC would like further discussion with Forewind over this issue.

As discussed in Chapter 16, Shipping and Navigation, of the ES Forewind is not currently intending to apply for operational safety zones, hence the only area fishermen will not be able to continue fishing in is the footprint of the individual turbines. Furthermore, as shown in Chapter 15, Commercial Fisheries, Appendix 15A, fishermen on the Dogger Bank already follow specific towing patterns in their GPS systems that are determined by a number of factors (see Figure 2.1 GPS Plotter Tracks of Dutch Beam Trawler). Forewind are committed to co-existence with the fishing industry and following consultation with fishermen using Dogger Bank Creyke Beck it is apparent that they will continue to fish within the wind farm. Therefore, it is not considered likely that fishing patterns will change during the operation of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and no further habitat degradation, abrasion and habitat modification is expected. Fishery exclusion zones will not be implemented.

JNCC / NE

O1.4

We also highlight that there is potentially an additional requirement, as announced by DEFRA, to consider fishing as a plan or project when undertaking a cumulative impact assessment as part of a Habitats Regulations Assessment. We are currently unsure as to how DECC, as the competent authority in this instance, is considering approaching this issue and we therefore advise that Forewind seek further clarification from DECC on this matter.

This point is noted but as there has been no official clarification from DECC regarding this matter; fishing has not been considered as a plan or project for the in-combination assessment.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

The high recoverability of affected communities is provided as part of the justification for the conservation objectives being considered as not compromised (Table 4.8 & 4.10). This justification is based on the MarLIN sensitivity index (section 4.2.51 & 4.2.52). However JNCC think that MarLIN provides more sensitivity information which seems not to have been fully used to inform the Appropriate Assessment information. JNCC have identified the following pressures to which the feature could be exposed during construction, operation and decommissioning of the Creyke Beck projects. Please also refer back to our comments made in Annex G, Main concerns, 6.29.

Further consideration and assessment of the use of the MarLIN sensitivity assessments in relation to VERs is supplied in Chapter 12.




JNCC / NE

O1.5

Whilst some of these pressures have been considered in the assessment (For example changes in suspended sediment concentration in section 4.2.61 and 4.2.68) it is not clear how or if some of these other pressures have been incorporated. For example in section 4.2.45 the Appropriate Assessment information states that “sensitivity to obstruction is considered high”. However in section 4.2.73 this is translated into: “It is intended that, following the cessation of operation, turbine structures would be removed from below the level of seabed. It is expected that substrate conditions would rapidly re-establish and, given the known recoverability of the benthic species/ communities, relatively quick recovery to prevailing baseline conditions would be highly likely” and in table 4.9 high sensitivity to obstruction is translated into “given the low sensitivity and high recoverability of the communities”. It appears that an incorrect sensitivity has been used to justify the conclusion that the relevant conservation objective is not affected. To resolve the issues surrounding the use of the MarLIN sensitivity assessments JNCC require the following clarifications from Forewind:

1. Clarification on how the MarLIN sensitivity assessments for the pressures outlined in table 1 have been used and how they relate to the conclusions presented in table 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10. The methodology presented should be clear and easy to follow. JNCC suggest that to take each pressure, then consider it at different stages of development and then explain how it relates to specific conservation objectives and the most sensitive biotopes found within each VER. MarLIN‟s limitations should also be included.

2. The most sensitive biotope in each VER, for each pressure should be acknowledged and assessed. This is important to prevent more sensitive biotopes being included with those which are less sensitive. For example the two main biotopes SS.SSa.IFiSa.NcirBat has intermediate intolerance and low sensitivity to substratum loss, but SS.SSa.ImuSa.FfabMag has high intolerance and moderate sensitivity to substratum loss, but both biotopes are included in VER A. JNCC advise that SS.SSa.ImuSa.FfabMag is considered in the assessment. A discussion on why it is appropriate to combine the given biotopes into VERS is also required because we usually advice that Appropriate Assessments are carried out at the biotope level. Therefore we require justification from Forewind as to why the broader Valued Ecological Receptor level is more appropriate than the biotope level.

3. The MarLIN sensitivity assessments are based on a single disturbance event, which for some impacts of the Creyke Beck projects is not likely to be the case. Therefore JNCC would like clarification from Forewind on how the long term continual

Clarification on how the MarLIN sensitivity assessments have been utilised and assessment with respect to the most sensitive biotopes is presented in Section 4.2 of this report.

Information on the likely duration of any disturbance to benthic communities is provided in Section 4.2 as part of the overall assessment.

See below for comments on the assessment of the recovery of the cSAC.

http://www.marlin.ac.uk/habitatsensitivity.php?habitatid=154&code=2004






disturbance is taken into account in this assessment.

4. JNCC disagrees with the expectation that substrate conditions would rapidly re-establish because portions of the Dogger Bank structure which will have been flattened out during the construction phase. It is unlikely that the structure will re-establish quickly or if it would at all given the site is a relict mound formed by glacial processes and submergence form sea level rise (JNCC, 2011). JNCC would like Forewind to consider the potential for this aspect of the features recovery in the assessment. Please refer to comments below in section 4.3.3.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

Conclusions on integrity of Dogger Bank cSAC. Main Concerns. 2.5. Phasing of the project: During the ES chapters Forewind provides the same construction scenario information. Providing this information in every chapter is helpful as it puts the results into context. However in the Appropriate Assessment information this approach changes so that the construction information is reduced so that key information is omitted. The Appropriate Assessment information, whilst heavily influenced by the information provided in the draft ES should be a stand-alone document and therefore JNCC expect to see this information included. In Chapter 12 (Section 7.1) the loss of habitat by obstruction during the operational phase is considered permanent. JNCC would like clarification from Forewind why habitat loss is considered permanent in the draft ES chapter 12, but temporary in the Appropriate

Information on the project is summarised in Section 2 of this report and provided in full in Chapter 5 of the ES. It was considered that providing all of the information relevant to the topics covered in this report would make Section 2 overly long and that reference to Chapter 5 can be easily made.

The difference in consideration of habitat loss between Chapter 12 and this report has been clarified.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

Assessment information. The conservation objectives, as set out in section 4.2.4 require the following topics to be assessed alone and in-combination with other plans and projects so that the integrity of Dogger Bank cSAC can be determined:

- Sediment transport pathways

- Hydrodynamic regime

- Morphology and structural integrity

- Extent, composition and distribution of qualifying sandbank habitat

- Extent, distribution and structure of benthic assemblages supported by the sandbank

These aspects are covered in Section 4.2 of this report.




JNCC / NE

O1.5

Levels of nutrients and contaminants

JNCC are not satisfied that some of these aspects have been adequately assessed within the Appropriate Assessment information and would like further dialogue with Forewind over this issue. From the information presented we cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objectives for Dogger Bank cSAC will not be compromised by the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Creyke Beck projects. We have provided more detail below.

Further information on water quality parameters is provided in Chapter 10 of the ES. This information has been used in determining whether water quality effects (other than an increase in suspended sediment concentrations) would be likely to arise. On the basis of the available information, it was determined that because of low contaminant levels in sediments that any effects from sediment disturbance on water quality would be negligible and potential impacts associated with this effect were screened out of the assessment (see Section 3 of this report).

JNCC / NE

O1.5

4.4.3. Conclusions on integrity of Dogger Bank cSAC: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the physical structure is restored” will not be compromised. Dogger Bank consists of areas of sand, cobbles, mixed sediments and has areas of mega-ripples and sand waves (Chapter 12, Appendix A). The impact of construction, operation and decommissioning on these features has not been assessed in the Appropriate Assessment information. The construction of the Creyke Beck projects has the potential to alter the morphology of the existing mega-ripples and sand waves through seabed levelling for the installation of gravity bases, the installation of cables and through temporary changes in physical processes. In the operational phase, changes in physical processes could alter the structure of these features and maintenance work could result in further changes to their structure. JNCC require Forewind to provide an assessment of how the Creyke Beck development is likely to affect these structures. This assessment should consider: The size and scale of surface features, the area affected by the proposed development in all stages and the ability of the features morphology to be restored once levelled, taking into consideration the relict nature of the sandbanks in the cSAC. JNCC also require Forewind to carry out an assessment on how the proposed Creyke Beck development in-combination with other plans and projects will impact on the cSAC features.

Assessment of potential changes to the morphology of the sandbank feature is considered in Section 4.2 of this report.




JNCC / NE

O1.5

4.4.3. Conclusions on integrity of Dogger Bank cSAC: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the natural environmental quality is restored” will not be compromised. There are potentially large quantities of hazardous materials being used, either within the wind turbines themselves (Chapter 5, Table 3.2) or potentially as part of the offshore collector, convertor or accommodation platforms (I.e. Helicopter refuelling facilities). Therefore whilst JNCC acknowledge that there is no intention to discharge toxic contaminants into the aquatic environment there is scope for this to occur during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the windfarm. The unintentional discharge of toxic chemicals has the potential to compromise this conservation objective: Therefore whilst JNCC acknowledge that Forewind are planning on mitigating this risk by implementing the measures contained within the Environmental Management and Monitoring plan JNCC would expect to see the accidental spill of hazardous materials scoped into the Appropriate Assessment information. This should also be considered when the Creyke Beck projects are assessed in-combination with other plans and projects.

As stated previously, Forewind do not consider that it is possible to assess the potential accidental release of contaminants, particularly as, by their very nature as accidental releases, it is not possible to quantify the volumes or materials involved. However, as stated, Forewind will produce an Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan which will set out measures to reduce the potential risk of any such incidents occurring and also put in place measures to deal with any such events.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

4.4.3. Conclusions on integrity of Dogger Bank cSAC: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the natural environmental quality is restored” will not be compromised. It is not clear how changes in sediment composition caused by the Creyke Beck projects have been considered. JNCC expect this to be fully considered within the Appropriate Assessment information. This should also be considered when the Creyke Beck projects are assessed in-combination with other plans and projects.

Assessment of potential changes in sediment composition of the sandbank feature is considered in Section 4.2 of this report.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

4.4.3. Conclusions on integrity of Dogger Bank cSAC: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the natural environmental processes and the extent are maintained” will not be compromised. The Appropriate Assessment information presented only considers benthic communities and does not consider the physical extent of the sandbank feature. JNCC require Forewind to carry out an assessment on how the proposed Creyke Beck development will impact the physical extent of the sandbank feature in the cSAC. This assessment should consider: The direct removal of sediment through sea bed preparation, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning and indirect removal of sediment through changes in hydrodynamics including loss out of the cSAC boundary. The stability of the sandbank and the ability for sediment to move within the system should also be considered. JNCC suggest that Forewind begin by using the information presented in section 4.2.71 Physical loss of sub-tidal sandbank communities

Assessment of potential changes to the physical extent of the sandbank feature is considered in Section 4.2 of this report.




and combine it with their physical process results (whilst acknowledging our comments on chapter 9, Physical Processes).

JNCC / NE

O1.5

4.4.3. Conclusions on integrity of Dogger Bank cSAC: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the natural environmental processes and the extent are maintained” will not be compromised. In table 2.1 the realistic worst case operational scenario in relation to increases in suspended sediment concentrations is presented. Please refer back to our comments made in Annex D Chapter 9 Marine Physical Processes, Main Concerns in relation to the need for additional modelling and realistic worst case scenarios.

See previous comments regarding Table 2.1.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

3.3 Activities and effects screened into the Appropriate Assessment: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the physical structure, diversity, community structure and typical species representative of sandbanks which are lightly covered by seawater all the time, in the Southern North Sea, are restored” will not be affected. The construction, operation and decommissioning of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck projects will result in the direct mortality of individuals, especially sessile or sedentary benthic and epibenthic species which have limited capacity to escape. Direct mortality of individuals has the potential to change the abundance and biomass of the species in question, and alter diversity, population and community structure. Therefore direct mortality should be fully considered in the worst case scenario for all development phases. JNCC expect to see this impact included in table 2.1 and table 3.3 and fully considered in the Appropriate Assessment information, including the in-combination assessment.

Assessment of potential changes to the benthic communities presented in Section 4.2 of this report effectively encompasses potential mortality losses through consideration of the sensitivity of the biotopes to the effects of the project and predicted recovery.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

3.3 Activities and effects screened into the Appropriate Assessment: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the physical structure, diversity, community structure and typical species representative of sandbanks which are lightly covered by seawater all the time, in the Southern North Sea, are restored” will not be affected. The assertion that all communities have a low sensitivity to increased suspended sediments is misleading. This should also be considered when the Creyke Beck projects are assessed in-combination with other plans and projects.

Assessment of the different sensitivities of the biotopes to increased suspended sediment concentrations is presented in Chapter 12 of the ES and in the assessment presented in Section 4.2 of this report.




JNCC / NE

O1.5

3.3 Activities and effects screened into the Appropriate Assessment: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the physical structure, diversity, community structure and typical species representative of sandbanks which are lightly covered by seawater all the time, in the Southern North Sea, are restored” will not be affected. It is not clear in the Appropriate Assessment information how habitat fragmentation has been considered. JNCC expect to see this impact included in table 2.1 and table 3.3 and fully considered in the Appropriate Assessment information.

Assessment of potential habitat fragmentation in respect of the sandbank feature is considered in Section 4.2 of this report.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

3.3.15. Water quality impacts (toxic contamination) effects from re-suspension of contaminated sediments: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the physical structure, diversity, community structure and typical species representative of sandbanks which are lightly covered by seawater all the time, in the Southern North Sea, are restored” will not be affected. JNCC note that water quality impacts have not been assessed further as no significant effect is expected. The SS.SSa.IMuSa.Ffab.Mag biotope which is one of the characterising biotopes of the bank community in Dogger Bank cSAC (Wieking and Kronke, 2003) is moderately sensitive to heavy metal contamination and synthetic compound contamination and there is some evidence to indicate that exposure can result in a decline of this biotope (Rayment, 2006). JNCC expect to see a discussion within the Appropriate Assessment information on how the biotopes and VERs given are affected by contaminated sediments and how this relates to this conservation objective. This should also be considered when the Creyke Beck projects are assessed in-combination with other plans and projects.

See previous comments regarding water quality and the information on contaminant levels presented in Chapter 10 of the ES.

JNCC / NE

O1.5

JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the physical structure, diversity, community structure and typical species representative of sandbanks which are lightly covered by seawater all the time, in the Southern North Sea, are restored” will not be affected. No justification has been provided on why the reduced extent of the feature would not change the physical structure, diversity or community structure.

This aspect is considered in Section 4.2 of this report.




JNCC / NE

O1.6

JNCC disagree with the conclusion that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the Dogger Bank cSAC as a result of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck in-combination with other plans and projects. In addition to our comments provided under “Conclusions on integrity of Dogger Bank cSAC. Main Concerns” we disagree with this conclusion on the following grounds:

Full consideration of potential in-combination impacts from relevant projects screened into the assessment is provided in respect of the attributes of the cSAC sandbank feature in Section 7.4 of this report.

JNCC / NE

O1.6

JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the natural environmental quality is restored” will not be compromised when assessed in-combination with other plans and projects. Whilst we acknowledge that Communities are used to high levels of suspended sediments for temporary durations we disagree that storm events are comparable to the construction timescale of the Creyke Beck projects (maximum length eleven years and six months (Chapter 9 section 5.2)) and others within the assessment. (i.e.Teesside A & B). We acknowledge that the worst case scenario considered is the construction of the Teesside projects at the same time as the Creyke Beck projects (7.2.23) but within the Rochdale envelope it is also possible that the projects could be built at different times, resulting in lower quantities of suspended sediment, but which persist over a longer time period. This scenario has not been considered and the “temporary” duration of the sediment plumes has not been put into context of the recoverability of biotopes from associated pressures. Please refer to our comments made in Annex D, Main Concerns, 5.3. JNCC require Forewind to provide adequate justification as to why sediment plumes will not compromise the conservation objective and to fully consider both the time intensive, and longer term construction scenarios.


JNCC / NE

O1.6

JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the natural environmental processes and the extent are maintained” will not be compromised when assessed in-combination with other plans and projects. The justification that the extent of the sandbank feature would return to the current baseline after the completion of decommissioning is not sufficiently supported. The construction of the Creyke Beck projects may involve the direct removal of sediment (ES Chapter 5, 3.5.2). Furthermore if the aggregate extraction licence area 466 became licensed and operational during the lifetime of Creyke Beck projects this would also result in the direct removal of 3 million tonnes of sediment over the licence period (Cemex 2012). Therefore it is unrealistic to assume that the extent of the sandbank feature would be returned to baseline conditions. JNCC require Forewind to provide adequate justification to support this conclusion.





JNCC / NE

O1.6

JNCC also require Forewind to carry out an assessment on how the proposed Creyke Beck development in-combination with other plans and projects will impact on the extent of the cSAC. This assessment should also include the direct removal of sediment by other industries; changes in hydrodynamics caused by other infrastructure and operations which results in a loss of sediment from the cSAC boundaries. In order to provide a more robust assessment we recommend that the in-combination effects should be quantified where possible. Reference should be made to but not limited to the proposed aggregate extraction levels for licence application area 466 and sediment removed for the construction of oil and gas infrastructure within the cSAC boundaries and the proposed Teesside A and B projects. For information on the location and predicted effect footprint of existing and proposed oil and gas infrastructure in the Dogger Bank region we recommend contacting the Environmental Management Team at DECC ([email protected]).


JNCC / NE

O1.6

7.3.30. Assessment against conservation objectives and conclusions on integrity: JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the physical structure, diversity, community structure and typical species representative of sandbanks which are lightly covered by seawater all the time, in the Southern North Sea, are restored” will not be affected. Krone et al., 2013a reports that planned renewable projects in the southern North Sea will support 4.3 times the artificial hard substrate than is currently available. The addition of artificial hard substrate into the North Sea can lead to changes in faunal composition, potentially act as stepping stones for invasive species and in some cases lead to the phenomenon known as Mytilusation (Krone et al., 2013b). The cumulative impact of the Creyke Beck projects in relation to the addition of hard substrate and the potential impacts on benthic communities should be assessed in-combination with other plans and projects.

JNCC cannot agree with the conclusion that the conservation objective: “Subject to natural change, restore the sandbanks to favourable condition, such that the physical structure, diversity, community structure and typical species representative of sandbanks which are lightly covered by seawater all the time, in the Southern North Sea, are restored” will not be affected. No justification has been provided on why the reduced extent of the feature would not change the physical structure, diversity or community structure.


mailto:[email protected]




JNCC / NE

O1.6

Other advice

2.6. Realistic worst case scenarios: JNCC acknowledge that the precise surface area available for colonisation during the operational phase cannot be calculated. However it would be helpful if in this section if the estimated volumes of the hard structures and their area of extent were provided in table 2.1 to give some indication of colonisation potential.

The exact surface area (km2) available for

colonisation cannot be calculated and is likely to vary considerably depending on the design of any foundation used (for example a conical gravity base as opposed to a multipile jacket foundation) and therefore it has not been possible to quantify this area. However, an assessment of potential impacts of colonisation of hard structures is presented in Section 7.6 of Chapter 12 of the ES.

JNCC / NE

O1.6

Other advice

3.3.34. Coastal and marine designated species populations: JNCC do not agree with the statement that: “habitat loss along the export cable route would occur in areas where rock is used to protect and bury cables. The total area that would be lost (worst case is determined as 2.7km

2)”. The removal of sediment to lay the cable will result in a loss of habitat, even if

the sediment is then dispersed over a wider area. Habitat loss will also occur if the cable is protected by other forms of protection such as concrete mattresses, and bagged solutions (ES Chapter 5, 3.10.3). This statement should be altered so that it is factually accurate.

Statements regarding cable laying activities and the need for protection have been clarified throughout this report.

JNCC / NE

O1.6

Other advice

4.2.16. Geomorphology. JNCC disagree with the assertion that Doggerbank is largely benign and featureless. Figure 25 in ES Chapter 12, Appendix A GEMS geophysical survey report shows that relatively large patches of sandwaves and mega-ripples have been found across some of Dogger Bank. Furthermore the changes in bathymetry and changes in underlying geology presented in this appendix (See figure 51 – 66) show that the structure of Dogger Bank is relatively complex. JNCC expect the physical nature of Dogger Bank to be accurately described in the Appropriate Assessment information and it would be helpful for Forewind to calculate the approximate area of the project areas which are covered by these features.

The description of the Dogger Bank has been altered in this report and the physical structure described where appropriate to do so. Further information is presented in Chapter 9 of the ES.




JNCC / NE

O1.6

Other advice

4.2.41 Communities and distribution: Further clarification is needed on how the biotopes presented in the Emu report (Chapter 12 Appendix D) relate to those in the Envision report (Chapter 12 Appendix G). The Appropriate Assessment information is unclear as section 4.2.35 provides the groups from the EMU report, but then the VERS were made using the Envision biotopes. Acknowledgement of the different methods, a discussion over why the Envision methodology was chosen over the Emu one and differences and similarities between them is required so we can understand the approach taken by Forewind.

Information contained in Chapter 12 of the ES has been amended to provide clarification on the „Biotope classification methodology‟. The Emu Technical report should not have included any reference to biotopes as identification of biotopes was outside the scope of works for Emu. The Envision biotopes are the ones used to inform the identification of VERs and the subsequent impact assessment. The Emu technical report will be amended for the final ES with all reference to biotopes removed. This clarification is reflected in the this report (Section 4.2).

JNCC / NE

O1.6

Other advice

4.2.44. Sensitivity to physical loss: JNCC disagree with the argument that the sandbank could recover relatively rapidly between removal activities. Dogger Bank was deposited in the last glaciation and is relatively stable with naturally low suspended sediment concentrations (Chapter 9, 4.12.4, Chapter 9 12.1, Chapter 9 4.12.4, Chapter 10, 4.2.3, Chapter 12, Appendix A). Therefore the ability for new sediment to replenish removed sediment is low. Forewind should provide a correct justification, which doesn‟t contradict other findings within the ES as to why they have concluded that the sensitivity of benthic communities to physical loss is moderate.

Sensitivity of the sandbank feature to physical loss has been clarified in Section 4.2 and is consistent with the information presented in other chapters of the ES.




Marine mammals

JNCC / NE

O.1.7.1 Main Advice

Harbour porpoise

JNCC would like to make Forewind aware that it is not within our remit to consider Annex II designated species for cSAC‟s inside 12nm or for designated species in foreign waters. As the Moray Firth cSAC for Bottle nose dolphins was justifiably screened out of assessment and there are currently no other offshore cSAC‟s for which marine mammal species are a qualifying feature we have not reviewed the marine mammal part of the Appropriate Assessment information. Natural England have provided comments on the inshore cSAC‟s for which marine mammals are a qualifying feature. In relation to the foreign cSAC‟s designated for marine mammal species we recommend that Forewind continue to liaise with our foreign counterparts. However, to improve their Appropriate Assessment information Forewind may wish to consider taking the relevant comments in relation to the Environmental Statement and applying them, where suitable to the Appropriate Assessment information.

The positions of JNCC and NE regarding responsibility for consideration of the implications of the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck project on designated harbour porpoise populations outside of UK waters is recognised. Liaison with counterparts in relevant European countries regarding impacts on SACs / SCIs designated for their harbour porpoise (and other relevant Annex II marine mammal species) has been undertaken.

Responses to comments made in respect of harbour porpoise in the ES have been incorporated in this report (see Section 5) where appropriate.

O.1.8.1Main Advice:

Harbour seal

Natural England advise that insufficient information has been provided in the HRA screening document to support the conclusion of no LSE on Harbour seal from all works and the decision to scope Harbour seal out of the HRA for all SACs. It would be beneficial to include the recent data (January 2012 telemetry data) within the assessment process before screening out the Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC from the HRA process to provide the further context of Harbour seal movement in relation to the windfarm site.

Annex A, 3.2 (p.15): Natural England would like clarity as to when the recent analysis of the 2012 Wash Harbour seal telemetry data held by SMRU will be available to inform this assessment.

Forewind considers that the observational data combined with the available telemetry data indicates that the use of the Dogger Bank Zone by this species is extremely limited. The effects of the installation of the export cable would be highly unlikely to have any population impacts on harbour seal (see Section 3 of this report). Consequently, it is considered that the conclusion of no LSE is justified.

Forewind has enquired about the 2012 Wash telemetry data and has been informed that this will not be available until Q1 2014 – hence it has not been possible to incorporate this data into the assessment.




O.1.8.1 Other Advice

33.9.4 3.2.38 (p.44): Marine Mammals. Appropriate Assessment Information. The assertion that the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck projects are located at the furthermost foraging range of Grey seal is misleading. Data presented in the ES Chapter, 14, 4.1.93 Brasseur et al 2010 shows that Grey seals cross the North Sea between UK and Dutch colonies. The Grey seal telemetry data presented in Chapter 14, Appendix A also supports the notion that Dogger Bank is not on the edge of the Grey Seal foraging range.

The assertion regarding foraging range is considered correct in the context of the typical foraging range of this species from breeding colonies. However, it is recognised that individuals may wander much more widely and hence the consideration of LSE with respect to SACs designated for grey seal. The data from Brasseur et al. 2010 is presented in this report (Section 5).

Ornithology and SPA designated features

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Advice relating to English SPAs

Definition of seabird breeding seasons

In the context of the AA report, Natural England has some concerns that the breeding seasons used in the draft ES and associated documents are too narrow for some species, notably northern gannet, black-legged kittiwake, common guillemot and razorbill. Whilst the breeding seasons deployed are broadly appropriate for the North Sea region, colonies within that region are likely to show latitudinal differences. We advise that breeding seasons for key SPA colonies are defined carefully with reference to a range of relevant literature, as these will have a significant bearing on the apportioning of impacts to these sites. The breeding season should be considered as beginning before egg-laying: whilst prospecting visits to colonies in the winter months should not be incorporated into the season used, we would expect the start of the defined breeding season to reflect the peak arrival of breeding birds to their colonies, based on best available evidence. The close of the breeding season should also be chosen carefully with respect to fledging/colony departure, as it will have a significant bearing on the definition of the post-breeding season.

As part of this exercise, and also in order to take into account variations in seabird breeding season commencement between years, we recommend that colony-specific data place should be obtained from colony managers where available. Clearly, it would be particularly useful to obtain information on species presence / activity at RSPB Bempton Cliffs both in general and from the years in which baseline surveying took place, as this information would be valuable for the assessment of impacts on the Flamborough Head & Bempton

Seasons are based on Kober et al. (2010) in the first instance. Definitions of breeding seasons for key seabird species considered in the assessment are provided in section 2.6 of the technical report (Appendix 11A of the ES). Forewind appreciates the point regarding latitudinal differences between colonies and the expansion of seasons reflects our thinking on these points. The seasons are used within population modelling and subsequently in the impact assessment. As impacts derived from the population estimates were apportioned to a suite of protected sites, it would have been extremely complex to consider specific breeding seasons for different colonies. As suggested, March is now also included as a breeding month for black-legged kittiwake.




Cliffs SPA.

More generally, we advise that there may be value in assessing the field data that has been collected to inform the ES to identify whether there appear to be marked changes in numbers from month to month. This could potentially inform seasonal divisions. So, for example, if abundance of a given seabird species suddenly increases in September, this would give an indication that August might justifiably be considered as part of the breeding season.

We fully recognise that ongoing debate about the most appropriate definition of seasons is possible due to variations within colonies and literature. Natural England is commissioning work to bring greater clarity to this important issue, and will provide any associated advice as soon as it becomes available.

Regarding the definition of an appropriate breeding season for black-legged kittiwake, we advise that there are grounds for considering the breeding season for this species should be extended to incorporate March for English SPA colonies. Frederiksen et al. (2012) indicates that kittiwakes should be back at their colonies in April across the entire North Atlantic breeding range (including colonies much further north); Brown and Grice (2005) defined the breeding season as March to July; Mendel et al. (2008) states that kittiwakes in the North Sea return to their colonies from February onwards.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Use of maximum foraging ranges when considering impacts on breeding seabird SPAs

The draft ES and associated documents uses the maximum recorded foraging range when considering breeding season connectivity to seabird colony SPAs, rather than the mean maximum foraging range generally advised by JNCC / Natural England. There are clear merits to taking this approach in the context of Dogger Bank, due to it falling beyond the mean maximum foraging range of several seabird species that are nevertheless present in the breeding season.

However, when considering species with large maximum foraging ranges, such as northern gannet and auk species, the use of maximum recorded foraging ranges risks potential for impacts to be spread widely across a wide range of seabird colony SPAs, many of which are too distant to account for any meaningful proportion of the birds present at Dogger Bank

Forewind acknowledges the sentence in the NE/JNCC guidance: “The Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies (SNCBs) have tended to advise that the „mean maximum‟ range is a suitable metric for HRA. This is because it recognises that different maxima have been estimated or measured for the same species, and the mean maximum range incorporates this variability without relying on single values that might be unrepresentative of all colonies.” Forewind is pleased that for some species NE accept maximum foraging ranges may be more appropriate, hence a stepwise approach is taken where existing data suggests mean maximum ranges are not appropriate and maximum ranges




in the breeding season, based on our knowledge of mean maximum foraging ranges. Use of a mean maximum foraging range approach would screen-in a smaller suite of sites but perhaps those most likely to contribute the bulk of the birds seem at the OWF site.

Partly in recognition of this issue, our interim advice note, “Natural England and JNCC advice on Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) screening for seabirds in the breeding season”, proposes a step-wise approach to identifying particular sites, including the assessment of colony-specific data. We note that Forewind have reviewed some available data in Table 4.6 of the Ornithology Technical Report, which we welcome. In the final ES/technical report it may be useful to include information from other SPAs where tagging/tracking has been carried out but breeding season connectivity with the Dogger Bank has not been demonstrated, as this may indicate regional patterns of usage.

should be used instead.

For common guillemot and razorbill, more recent tracking studies (FAME 2012) have shown that these species may forage considerably further from their colonies than suggested by Thaxter et al. (2012) and this, together with the continuing use and concentration of birds in the western part of the Dogger Bank Zone during the breeding season, suggests that birds from breeding colonies do forage at least in this area. A maximum foraging range is thus used for these species, together with black-legged kittiwake, to determine the suite of protected sites that might potentially be impacted by the effects associated with each wind farm project during the breeding season (Table 4.6 in the technical report – Appendix 11A of the ES). With respect to northern gannet, more specific information is available for British, Irish and French breeding colonies (Wakefield et al. 2013). This indicates that northern gannets may forage in the zone from both the Flamborough & Bempton Cliffs SPA and Firth of Forth Islands SPA, but not from 10 other colonies considered by this study. Thus the Dogger Bank Zone is considered to be within foraging range of birds from these two sites, while (given the foraging range of these birds) it cannot be discounted that birds from the Seevogelschutzgebiet Helgoland SPA in Germany might also forage within the Zone.




JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Additionally, in our previous response to the HRA Screening report (February 2013), JNCC and Natural England suggested a review of survey data from the site to identify evidence of auks carrying fish and also their flight direction to provide indicative information regarding whether the auks observed during the breeding season are associated with SPA colonies or are non-breeding individuals. This exercise does not appear to have been carried out (or may not have been possible) – but in the context of limited information being available from auk tracking studies (particularly the lack of data from English colonies) we still consider it has merit.

Natural England recommends that the stepwise approach in the interim advice note is used to review the SPAs/qualifying features currently screened in for breeding season impacts, and that further effort is made to identify potential evidence to justify the use of the maximum foraging range for those colonies/species. We acknowledge there is limited evidence from tracking/tagging regarding auk species, hence the suggestion of reviewing survey data above.

Please also see our comments regarding apportioning during the breeding season: the alternative approach to apportioning devised by Natural England, which takes account of central place foraging, has the potential to counteract the risk of impacts being too widely apportioned to distant colonies.

Section 6 of this report.

This is a valid point. The survey data from the site was investigated for this issue, finding that little systematic recording existed hence being unsuitable to confirm or deny presence of breeding birds or nearby colonies.

As noted above, for foraging ranges, Forewind now follows a stepwise approach as suggested by NE/JNCC and follows the recent guidance to use a mean maximum foraging range but scoping in additional sites if direct connectivity has been recorded.

Forewind notes the comment regarding apportioning and provide a response to this where first mentioned.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Apportioning breeding season impacts to individual SPAs

The equation used to apportion impacts does not take into account the fact that, as central-place foragers, seabirds are likely to forage as close to the colony as available food resources permit. Therefore it is more likely that seabird density declines with increasing distance from the colony (beyond the decreases expected due to the increasing sea surface area further away from the colony). Taken with the use of the maximum rather than mean maximum foraging range, we are concerned that the draft ES may be redistributing potential impacts on colonies that are nearer to the OWF over a wider set of more distant and in some cases larger SPAs. This is particularly the case for northern gannet.

Natural England devised an alternative, indicative method to breeding season apportioning which takes into account central place foraging when providing advice to the Examining Authority in relation to the Galloper OWF. This can be viewed at:

Section 6 of this report

Appendix 3 of Appendix 11A of the ES

This point is noted. Through further discussion with Stakeholders (at the Draft ES stage), agreement was reached over the approach to apportioning adopted in the final ES As is noted in the evidence supplied in relation to the Galloper case, the decline in density with distance from a breeding colony is likely to be most pronounced in near-shore foragers. It should thus be noted that the Dogger Bank projects are beyond the breeding season foraging range of several species. Further, the projects are only in the foraging range of a relatively




http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/eastern/galloper-offshore-wind-farm/?ipcsection=hearings.

To view Natural England‟s advice, click through to „Showing 51 to 60 of 108 entries‟ and then click „121029 EN010003 NE Written Summary of Biodiversity Hearing Submissions‟. Paragraphs 62- 83 describe the rationale for and methodology of the alternative approach.

We would be pleased to discuss the alternative method outlined in the above advice in more detail.

few breeding colonies in most instances (and in some cases only one or two sites

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Apportioning non-breeding season impacts to individual SPAs

We note in 4.2.14 of the Ornithology Technical Report that „the magnitude of each impact determined for each wind farm project is thus apportioned to each protected site surrounding the North Sea, according to the size of the species‟ population at the site relative to that in this wider region as a whole‟. Natural England acknowledges that this approach is broadly in line with the interim advice note published on this matter („JNCC and Natural England interim advice on HRA screening for seabirds in the non breeding season, February 2013‟).

However, Natural England recommends that the population figures used for this „wider region‟ are presented clearly, together with an explanation of how these figures have been produced, including what species-specific evidence has been used. For example, the SOSS4 PVA report for northern gannet contains information which allows the population of adult gannet that might winter in or pass through the North Sea on autumn migration to be estimated as 67,700 (Table 6 PVA), and 171,900 respectively (estimated by Natural England). Similarly Frederiksen et al (2012) presents information from which it can be estimated that the size of the adult kittiwake population present in the North Sea in mid-winter is c 335,233. Provision of such detailed information on the calculation of “wider regional” populations will then allow verification of whether appropriate Biologically Defined Minimum Population Scales (BDMPS) have been used.

Section 6 of this report

Appendix 11A of the ES

This has been taken into account through the correction factors we have applied. Season specific calculations based on Skov et al. 1995 North Sea breeding and non-breeding components have been considered. This is outlined in Table 4.23 of the technical report (Appendix 11A of the ES).

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/eastern/galloper-offshore-wind-farm/?ipcsection=hearings

http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/projects/eastern/galloper-offshore-wind-farm/?ipcsection=hearings




JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Migratory waterbirds

We note that apportioning the migratory waterbirds predicted to transit the OWF to individual SPAs has not been attempted (e.g. paragraph 6.3.22), and as a result the potential collision risk to features of specific SPAs has not been assessed in detail in either the draft ES or AA report.

Wright et al (2012) propose a number of alternative ways in which the estimated overall collision mortality predicted to occur at such large scales might be assigned to particular SPAs, for example to inform HRAs. Wright et al (2012) set out 5 alternatives as follows:

• All mortality could be assigned to the single nearest SPA population.

• The total mortality could be distributed evenly between all UK SPA populations (i.e. all SPA populations lose the same percentage of birds)

• The total mortality could be distributed between UK SPA populations based on a weighting according to distance from the windfarm in question (i.e. the majority assigned to the nearest SPAs or any other SPA in turn).

• As a precautionary approach, all mortality could be assigned to each single SPA in turn.

• A modelling approach such as the randomised simulation modelling currently being conducted by APEM could be used.

Wright et al (2012) note that the way in which this process is carried out should be agreed with the relevant statutory nature conservation body. JNCC and Natural England provided the following advice to Dogger Bank via email on 05 April 2013, and hope that it identifies a suitable way forward in assessing impacts on individual SPAs and providing quantitative data to inform the AA report:

• JNCC and Natural England advocate the use of the SOSS migration modelling tool (Wright et al. 2012), or suitable alternative (e.g. APEM 2012) to assess the effects of OWF developments on protected migrant waterbirds.

• Features of all SPAs in Great Britain that Wright et al. (2012) predict to pass

Section 6 of the HRA

Appendix 11A of the ES

As proposed, the methodology of Wright et al. (2012) has been followed, and features of all SPAs in Great Britain that Wright et al. (2012) predict to pass through a corridor containing the OWF footprint screened in.

We have not estimated the proportion of the population within the SPA network but instead we have calculated risk to migrants based on the entire UK or GB or GB & Ireland population as appropriate. This will still give exactly the same answer as the method suggested in terms of the proportion of the population at risk (which can be applied to each SPA as suggested), but the absolute numbers will be slightly higher than they would had we multiplied populations by the proportion of the species thought to be within the SPA network. Our method is therefore more precautionary than that recommended by NE. We think our method is preferable as using the proportion of the population thought to be within the SPA network (as suggested by NE) will underestimate the numbers of „SPA birds‟ affected due to turnover which is known to occur in most migratory species as individual birds move through SPAs.

We have expressed the value predicted to result in mortality from collision as a proportion of the UK or GB or GB & Ireland population as appropriate (as described above). This gives exactly the same proportion as would have been calculated for the




through a corridor containing the OWF footprint should initially be screened in to assessment.

• To avoid addition errors in estimating SPA populations, the wintering estimate of the species in question (Musgrove et al. 2012) should be used. The migratory proportion of the wintering population should first be estimated, and then multiplied by the proportion of the species thought to be within the SPA network (Stroud et al. 2001) to give the abundance of „SPA birds‟ migrating through the corridor. A similar approach can be taken for migrant breeding birds, using estimates in Musgrove et al. 2013. [Note that knowledge of changes in wintering waterbird distribution, e.g. from WeBS reports, may be useful to inform the current relevance of Stroud et al. 2001; for instance, birds may be known to have declined or increased at certain sites, potentially shifting the balance of birds within and without protected sites]. If it is justified to use a sub-section of the SPA network, this should be clearly explained. The number of migrants and proportion of birds associated with protected sites will need to be adjusted accordingly.

• The value predicted to result in mortality from collision (using appropriate models and parameters) should be expressed as a proportion of the SPA total estimate. As we do not recommend any weighting to specific SPAs, except where this is justified and explained clearly, the effect will be felt at the same level across the network. The exception to this is if there is known difference in migratory routes, where the SPA network may be divided into smaller sub-sections, or if there are any SPAs which appear to be at greater risk – perhaps those in greatest proximity to the OWF. In this instance it may be appropriate to model migration at the individual SPA level.

• The exercise should be repeated for all OWFs lying within the corridor established by Wright et al. (2012), to establish cumulative effect.

• Once the proportion of birds interacting is understood, this can be scaled to SPA abundance, and this value can be fed into the Band (2012) collision risk model.

• Where the exercise reveals a specific indication that non-trivial numbers of birds are predicted to interact with OWFs, it may be appropriate to consider further the impacts at individual SPAs, by re-analysis of model output to focus on migration routes of birds arriving

proportion of the SPA total estimate had we used the method suggested by NE.

Cumulative collision risk for migrants has been calculated for the Creyke Beck A and B and Teesside A & B projects within the Dogger Bank zone. Cumulative assessment is also undertaken at the scale of the wider North Sea region (see Appendix 11A), although following the overall Forewind Cumulative Impact Assessment, only projects and plans for which there is medium to high confidence data and project information are included. In the case of the assessment of cumulative collision risk for migrants, figures are available for only a small proportion of those species likely to cross the overall suite of wind farm projects in the North Sea region, for which assessment is now possible through the work of Wright et al. (2012). Further, the numbers of other projects for which estimates are provided for migrants are very few, and thus the sites for which data were available only represent a very small proportion of the overall suite in the North Sea region. For those species whose migration zones overlap with the Creyke Beck A and B and Teesside A and B projects, indicative figures of the percentages of these migration zones that overlap with the overall suite of wind farm projects considered in the cumulative assessment in the North Sea region are also shown.

We have not done this because there are no species for which non-trivial numbers of birds are predicted to interact. However, we do not think that the method suggested is appropriate anyway because many migratory species will not migrate




at a single point location (SPA) from across a wide front. direct to SPAs but will instead migrate to the UK then move along the coast to the relevant SPAs. In cases where there is a wind farm very close to a particular SPA, if the wind farm is very close to the coast but slightly offset from the SPA in question, it is quite likely that using this method could significantly underestimate the numbers of birds likely to pass through the wind farm. We therefore think it is not appropriate to treat birds migrating to SPAs as migrating to/from a single geographical point.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

The AA report should also attempt to assess the cumulative impacts on migratory waterbirds from other OWF as a result of collision mortality. Whilst we accept that limited information from other OWF submissions may be available to carry out such an assessment, meaningful potential impacts on migratory waterbirds are clearly more likely to accrue at the cumulative level – indeed this was one of the reasons behind the development of the SOSS-05/APEM models.

See above.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Natural England notes that a number of potentially relevant SPAs on/near to the English East Coast or further inland do not appear to have been considered at the HRA screening stage (as set out in Appendix A of the AA report) i.e. they have not even been screened out. We note that other OWF ESs e.g. East Anglia One have considered potential impacts on relevant waterbird SPAs beyond the North Sea coastline, and advise that relevant waterbirds on the English south coast, the west coast of the UK and also inland should have been considered for potential LSE. Natural England also advises that some SPAs that are screened out in Appendix A should be reconsidered for LSE: please see our detailed comments below. We apologise for not providing advice to Forewind on this matter before now.

List of further sites to be included provided by Natural England (email of 24.06.13 from Martin Kerby). These SPAs and Ramsar sites have been screened in and considered for potential LSE (see Appendix C).




JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Cumulative Impacts Assessment (CIA)

Please see our comments above regarding CIA. We re-emphasise the need to carefully review all information in the public domain regarding impacts of particular OWF on seabird interest features of SPAs. Figures (including totals) provided by other OWF CIAs should also be considered for use, although wherever possible cross-referencing should be carried out to ensure erroneous figures have not been used. JNCC and Natural England note that the cumulative figure of 5,572 gannet collisions is considerably greater than the cumulative figures presented in either the East Anglia One submission (2,187 excluding any value at Dogger Bank) or the Hornsea Draft ES.

As noted above, the CIA in the AA report should also incorporate the impacts of operational OWF, due to the potential for existing projects to have ongoing effects (yet to be reflected in the baseline) on long-lived but slow-to-mature seabird populations. Built, operational, developments are not part of an HRA in-combination assessment, but they are part of an existing baseline of impacts, accumulated over time. Thus, built, operational windfarms should form part of the assessment (in the sense of being a cumulative impact) but not strictly speaking be part of the in-combination element of the assessment unless there are residual effects.

As also noted above, projects that can reasonably be foreseen to come forward during the lifespan of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck should feature in the AA report‟s CIA, although we appreciate that limited seabird data regarding these projects is currently available.

Section 7.1 and 7.7 of this report.

The approach and methodology for consideration of in-combination impacts of projects on seabirds is set out in Section 7.7 of this report.

Cumulative impacts are considered for projects beyond the foraging range of seabird colony SPAs, and have been used to inform assessment at national and biogeographic scales. However, it is exceptional to find other examples where impacts out of the breeding season have been apportioned back to protected sites.

It is not considered appropriate to include operational wind farms within the cumulative impact assessment. This is only the case where a project has been operational for the full period over which the baseline data was collected. Where a project was under construction at the start of the surveys and where data allows, projects have been included. Whilst the point is noted that impacts of operational wind farms may not yet be being experienced there is no way to tell whether this is the case or whether in fact the contrary is true and the full impacts are already being experienced. Further, for these projects it is often the case that the assessment in the ES is based on a worst case which has not, in reality, been built and hence the impacts anticipated would not be expected to be as predicted in the ES for that project, and would in fact be lesser. It would be a strategic level activity to revisit all now operational wind farms and calculate the actual predicted impact based on the operational wind farm and outside the scope of




work for one developer. Hence it is considered that inclusion of these projects would give unrealistic results which are worse than the realistic worst case scenario and may inaccurately assume that impacts for these projects are not already being experienced at the relevant species or site level.

As a result, Forewind have not included operational projects in the CIA (or in-combination assessment) and feel that to add these impacts to those outlined in the CIA would present an unrealistic worst case scenario which risks overestimating impacts on receptors.

In addition, and in line with the Forewind CIA strategy, projects which are reasonably foreseeable have been included where data on the project and environmental information are suitable to allow a meaningful assessment. For example, this has included an assessment of the Teesside A and B projects as part of the CIA and in-combination assessment in this report. However, where confidence in environmental or project data is low, it is not considered appropriate to include these projects as this would give highly unrealistic results based on Rochdale envelopes. The inclusion of such uncertain data could lead to either under- or over-estimates of impacts, and would not aid the decision making process




JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Main site-specific concerns regarding English SPAs:

Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA – general

Natural England notes from the draft ES that Forewind uses the 2001 SPA Review population figures when considering impacts on the SPA, rather than the proposed extension figures provided by Natural England in April 2013. Please note that the formal consultation on the extended SPA is currently scheduled to commence in October 2013, which could potentially overlap with the examination period for Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. Should the formal consultation take place on schedule, the proposed extension will be a pSPA. This is likely to have a bearing on the accuracy of the final AA report‟s consideration of impacts on the SPA.

Please see our comments regarding the apportioning of breeding season impacts above, as these have a bearing on the assessment of impacts on Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA species, most notably northern gannet and common guillemot.

Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA - northern gannet

Natural England agrees that it is not currently possible to ascertain on AEOI on the SPA‟s population of northern gannet, when considered in-combination with other plans and projects.

The CIA section of the AA report identifies that Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A + B, in-combination other OWF, will result in a level of collision risk that significantly increases the likelihood of the SPA population declining. The combined figure of 763 significantly exceeds a number of thresholds beyond which the population is predicted to be more likely to decline, including figures calculated by Natural England during the consultation process on the Triton Knoll OWF. We agree with Forewind that further analysis of the cumulative collision risk to the SPA‟s gannet population is required. We welcome the use of the SOSS04 PVA report for this species and look forward to working with Forewind regarding this issue.

Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA – black-legged kittiwake

The figures for the proposed extended SPA provided by Natural England in April 2013 have now been used in determining the potential impacts of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck on the designated populations of Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA.

Revised in-combination analysis of the impact of the wind farm on the breeding northern gannet population of Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA is presented in Section 7.7 of this report. The conclusions reached are based on the SOSS04 PVA work and materials presented as part of the Triton Knoll OWF application and determination.

The correct PBR value calculated for the Triton




Natural England is concerned that the AA report‟s assessment of impacts on the SPA‟s black-legged kittiwake population is based on the PBR figure of 762 adult birds calculated for the Triton Knoll project (paragraph 6.6.180). However this figure was based on an incorrect equation. This issue was discussed in detail and resolved with the consultant involved. The final PBR values derived by the developer for Triton Knoll are presented in the Statement of Common Ground.

Please note that Natural England has independently recalculated the PBR figure used at Triton Knoll incorporating a precautionary estimate of error (for Nmin) and derived a lower PBR value. These consultation materials are available on the Planning Inspectorate website.

This calls into question the AA report‟s conclusion that Dogger Bank Creyke Beck A + B alone will not result in AEOI on the SPA‟s black-legged kittiwake population. We note that collision is predicted to result in an annual loss of between 101-291 adult birds from the SPA, and that in addition displacement is predicted to result in mortality of 60 – 90 birds (although this may be an overly precautionary assessment). Natural England is therefore not currently able to advise no AEOI from Creyke Beck A + B alone on the SPA‟s population of black-legged kittiwake.

Needless to say, the predicted cumulative impacts with both Dogger Bank Teesside and other North Sea OWF are of even greater concern. There is clearly a need for more detailed analysis of impacts on the SPA‟s black-legged kittiwake population, utilising data from existing PVA/PBR work. We note that Smartwind are undertaking a PVA with respect to impacts on the SPA‟s black-legged kittiwakes arising from Hornsea 1 OWF – there would be merit in approaching Smartwind regarding this. Again we will work closely with Forewind regarding this issue.

Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA – common guillemot

Natural England notes that in-combination with Dogger Bank Teesside, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck is predicted to result in the mortality of between 0.87 and 1.04 (mean value 0.95) of the SPA‟s common guillemot i.e. potentially over 1% of the population. The

Knoll OWF as presented in the Statement of Common Ground has now been referred to in this report (Section 6.6).

Revised in-combination analysis of the impact of the wind farm on the breeding black-legged kittiwake population of Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA is presented in Section 6.6 and 7.7 of this report. The conclusions reached are based on the materials presented as part of the Triton Knoll OWF application and determination.

Revised common guillemot population impacts resulting from displacement and mortality are presented in Section 6.6. (Dogger Bank Creyke Beck alone) and 7.7 (in-combination) of this report. Revisions to the adopted mortality rate have taken into account a review of displacement effects with particular reference to auks (see Appendix 11A of




potential increase over this population‟s baseline mortality has not been provided. We note that Forewind are reviewing the available evidence regarding OWF displacement impacts to determine whether the ES‟s current displacement values are appropriate.

Depending on the outcomes of this review, the implications of the predicted level of mortality on the SPA‟s common guillemot population would benefit from a more detailed examination. At this stage Natural England is unable to agree with the AA report‟s conclusion regarding potential AEOI in combination with Dogger Bank Teesside. Regarding population level impacts, Natural England advises caution regarding the assumption that current population increases are likely to continue throughout the lifetime of the project. More than one potential scenario should be considered, including population stability as well as slower rates of growth.

In-combination displacement effects from additional OWF is not considered within the draft AA report due to data availability and comparability issues. Nevertheless, as additional OWF have the potential to increase SPA common guillemot displacement mortality levels beyond those already predicted for the Dogger Bank projects, this issue will require further consideration, including use of any additional data that becomes available pre-submission. We accept some elements of this CIA will necessarily have to be on a more qualitative basis.

More generally, we are aware that CEH have been commissioned by Marine Scotland to consider the scope for modelling the impact of displacement on breeding auks via an energetic approach. It may be worth seeing whether any preliminary results from this work are available in advance of the final ES submission.

Natural England is not currently in a position to advise no AEOI on the SPA‟s population of common guillemot when considered in-combination with other plans and projects.

Flamborough Head & Bempton Cliffs SPA – razorbill

the ES) as well as additional work presented in Section 6.3 of this report which examines displacement/mortality in the context of effective loss of foraging habitat. The values originally presented in the draft HRA and ES have therefore been revised.

With respect to displacement, it should be re-iterated that the mortality rates considered here represent the proportion of those birds predicted to be displaced that might be expected to be lost to the population in the long-term. No attempt is made to assess this effect in relation to changes in background annual mortality that would be required to bring the population to the new lower equilibrium, as a number of uncertainties are likely to determine how long this will take to happen and thus the changes in annual mortality required.

Results from the CEH study were not available for inclusion in the assessment work presented in the ES and this report.

As for common guillemot, revision of the population impact of displacement and mortality on the breeding razorbill population at Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA has been undertaken (Dogger Bank Creyke Beck alone) and 7.7 (in-combination) of this report. The values originally presented in the draft HRA and ES have therefore been revised.




Natural England notes that in-combination with Dogger Bank Teesside, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck is predicted to result in the mortality of between 0.55 and 0.74% (mean value 0.64%) of the SPA‟s razorbill. Whereas this mortality is at a lower level than for the SPA‟s common guillemot, it does provide an indication that, when considered in combination with displacement effects from other OWF, Dogger Bank projects could make a significant contribution to displacement mortality of the SPA‟s razorbill population. Accordingly, Natural England is not currently in a position to advise no AEOI on the SPA‟s population of razorbill, when considered in-combination with other plans and projects. Please see our comments above.

Farne Islands SPA – common guillemot and razorbill

Natural England notes that in-combination with Dogger Bank Teesside, Dogger Bank Creyke Beck is predicted to result in the mortality of between 0.51 and 0.61% (mean value 0.56%) of the SPA‟s common guillemot and between 0.53 and 0.7% (mean value 0.61%) of the SPA‟s razorbill.

Again this level of impact indicates that, when considered in combination with displacement effects from other OWF, Dogger Bank projects could make a significant contribution to displacement mortality of the Farne Islands SPA‟s common guillemot and razorbill populations. Please see our comments above. Accordingly, Natural England is not currently in a position to advise no AEOI on the SPA‟s population of common guillemot and razorbill, when considered in-combination with other plans and projects.

The comments provided above with respect to the populations of these two auk species at Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA also apply with regard to the Farne Islands SPA.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Advice relating to Scottish SPAs

JNCC/SNH advise that there are some differences in the methodological approach to assessing impacts (see below). This may not affect the overarching conclusions in respect of Scottish SPA sites presented, although it will significantly reduce the SPAs under consideration. We suggest that, after full consideration of the comments presented within this S42 response, it may be useful to provide a revised summary table of the conclusions reached in terms of Scottish SPAs in the final HRA report.

Seabird SPA - impacts in the breeding season




The use of maximum foraging ranges:

JNCC and SNH jointly note that in the context of Scottish developments - JNCC and SNH advise that a mean maximum range should be employed to identify potential connectivity with SPAs in the breeding season. As stated in the comments above, while there may be some merit in extending to a maximum range, for species in which recent tracking work suggests they may forage at larger distances than previously thought, this only applies to a few species (black legged kittiwake, common guillemot, razorbill). Furthermore, again as noted above, this initial screening should then consider other sources of evidence to support whether birds present at Dogger Bank are actively engaged in breeding activities and/or demonstrate connectivity with the SPAs identified (based on for example flight directions, fish carrying behaviour, age). As such, the generic application of a maximum foraging range to screen species in is not supported by JNCC/SNH for Scottish SPAs. The use of mean maximum foraging ranges will decrease the Scottish SPAs screened in due to LSE and currently progressed from LSE and AA.

Population estimates

Please note that SNH and JNCC have recently provided the most up-to-date population counts for a number of SPAs to Marine Scotland Science, these agreed population are available on request from JNCC. JNCC/SNH do not advocate the application of Seabird Monitoring Programme trends to update population estimates for Scottish SPAs.

Seabird SPAs – impacts in the non-breeding season.

The identification of connectivity between individual breeding season SPA colonies and birds at sea in the non-breeding season, and subsequent quantification of impact is extremely challenging. Currently, JNCC/SNH advise marine proposals in Scottish waters that there is no requirement for impacts to be assessed under HRA to SPAs outwith the breeding season. For example where potential connectivity only exists between the proposed site and seabird species in the non-breeding season. Instead, the assessment of impact at larger populations scales (e.g. national, biogeographic), and for the appropriate season, should be presented as part of the EIA process.

See comments provided previously in respect of English SPAs.

These estimates have been used in the assessment work.

While it is noted that this requirement does not exist, in practical terms, it was necessary to include Scottish sites in the suite of protected sites considered in apportioning impacts.




JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

Table 2.1. The scenario provided does not give a „worst case‟ for seabird displacement or seabird collision (i.e. number/extent/design of turbines).

Worst case scenarios in respect of ornithology interests now presented and discussed in Section 6.6 of this report.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

3.1.8. We note that „Further consideration of LSE has, therefore, effectively been subsumed into the overall assessment of effects and impacts presented in the HRA report sections that provide information for appropriate assessment‟. Whilst this is a practical approach, we do have some concerns that the report‟s „final‟ view regarding LSE is not always clearly documented across the three key documents (main report, Appendix A, Appendix B). This may cause the competent authority some difficulty. Please also see our comments above (Table 3.3 (Operation Phase/Operation of wind turbines/Collision of birds with turbines). We question whether all SPA and Ramsar sites supporting migratory bird species that pass through the wind farm area have in fact been screened into the HRA. A number of SPAs on the English channel and UK west coasts do not feature in the HRA Screening document, despite being likely to support waterbirds which migrate across the North Sea. In addition, some inland sites appear to have been overlooked. This comment is also relevant to the „Barrier to bird movements‟ row.

The LSE decisions are now fully presented in a set of tables for each SPA and Ramsar site in Appendix C to this report. A number of additional SPA and Ramsar sites to those considered at the draft HRA stage have been added in to the assessment on the basis of information received from Natural England.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

3.2.2. As noted in our comments on Chapter 9 of the draft ES and on the AA report, Natural England does not believe impacts on the Humber Estuary SAC can be scoped out of the HRA on the basis of the information provided so far. Given the dependency of SPA features on habitats which form the interest features of the SAC, please note that these comments also apply to the Humber Estuary SPA.

Further consideration of the potential for the project to influence nearshore sediment dynamics is provided in Chapter 9 of the ES and is discussed further in Section 3 of this report. The findings of the sediment transport assessment are related to the designated habitats of the Humber Estuary SAC and the Humber Estuary SPA.




JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

3.2.47/3.2.50/6.1.3. One of these sections should justify the omission of sandwich and little tern colonies, as it is unclear from the draft AA report why these species are being treated differently to Arctic and common terns.

The reasons for omitting these species are provided in the tables documenting the LSE decision in Appendix C of this report.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

3.2.49. The scope of the initial screening exercise for migratory waterbirds should have been wider than SPA/Ramsar sites around the greater North Sea, due to potential connectivity with sites on other UK coasts/further inland.

A number of additional SPA and Ramsar sites to those considered at the draft HRA stage have been added in to the assessment on the basis of information received from Natural England.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

Table 3.7. As noted above, we are concerned that the CIA section does not appear to consider cumulative impacts arising from built, operational projects, projects beyond breeding season maximum foraging range distances and projects that, whilst not yet in the planning system, are clearly foreseeable (i.e. remaining Round 3 schemes). All of these have been considered to some extent in other OWF HRA CIA. Whilst far from an exhaustive list, Natural England advises consideration of the following additional OWF when considering impacts on seabirds and migratory waterbirds in the CIA:

Built, operational OWF: Scroby Sands, London Array Phase I, Lynn & Inner Dowsing, Gunfleet Sands, Kentish Flats and Thornton Bank Phase I.

Consented or proposed OWF: Blyth Demonstration Project, London Array Phase II, BARD Offshore 1, Thornton Bank Phase II and III, Borkum Phase I, Kentish Flats extension.

In addition, we note that all the projects screened in are from other off-shore proposals. Consideration should be given to impacts at or near to the SPAs themselves: for example, regarding Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA, the Environment Agency‟s Filey Bay Net Limitation Order regarding by-catch of auks and a recent proposal in local authority forward planning documents to create a marina at Bridlington Harbour are relevant to the CIA. There may be other relevant plans and projects.

The in-combination strategy adopted for the HRA process is set out in Section 7 of this report. This provides the reasoning behind the overall approach to the in-combination assessment as well as setting out the criteria for project screening. The full list of projects considered in respect of ornithological interests is provided in Section 7.7 of this report.




JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

Table 6.2. For Farne Islands SPA, Atlantic puffin is assessed as beyond the maximum foraging distance to Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. However in the HRA Screening Report 5.5.51/Table 5.3, it is considered to be within potential foraging distance („sufficiently close‟). This requires clarification.

This has been clarified. Dogger Bank Creyke Beck is located beyond the mean maximum foraging range of Atlantic puffin from the Farne Islands SPA.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

6.3.10. We welcome the use of Seabird Monitoring Programme data, where available, for SPA colonies. Where possible, the population figures used for the assessment of impacts on SPA features should be contemporaneous with the survey data (i.e. from 2010 and 2011).

Table 6.4. Please see our comments above regarding the vulnerability of northern gannet to OWF.6.5.33 onwards. Displacement effects on northern gannet are not considered in this section because they are assigned a displacement mortality figure of 0%. As noted above, this may not be a sufficiently precautionary approach, in which case displacement effects on northern gannet may need to be considered here.6.6.84-85 and elsewhere. Please see comments above regarding population growth assumptions: where there is a plausible risk of AEOI, a range of population scenarios including stability should be considered for SPA species that are currently undergoing significant increases. 6.6.184 onwards/Table 6.42. Assessing the collision risk to migratory waterbirds with respect to the GB/GB & Ireland population is insufficient for the purposes of HRA. Please see our comments including potential alternative approaches above. At this stage, there is insufficient evidence on which to base the conclusions in 6.7.39 and later sections regarding the potential for AEOI on migratory waterbird SPA features.6.6.189. It does not logically follow that a small proportion of the GB population being affected means that there is no potential for significant impacts on the qualifying features of individual SPAs.

These comments have been considered and appropriate actions undertaken to address them at the relevant points in this report (Sections 6.6 and 7.7).

In respect of gannet displacement, a rate of 75% has been used in the assessment. However, it is considered that at the project level no mortality would result, while at the cumulative (in-combination) level a 5% mortality rate has been assumed.

In respect of collision risk in relation to migratory waterbird populations the proportion of the population within the SPA network has not been estimated, but instead we have calculated risk to migrants based on the entire UK or GB or GB & Ireland population as appropriate. This will still give exactly the same answer as the method suggested in terms of the proportion of the population at risk (which can be applied to each SPA as suggested), but the absolute numbers will be slightly higher than they would had we multiplied populations by the proportion of the species thought to be within the SPA network. Our method is therefore more precautionary than that recommended by NE. We think our method is preferable as using the proportion of the population thought to be within the




SPA network (as suggested by NE) will underestimate the numbers of „SPA birds‟ affected due to turnover which is known to occur in most migratory species as individual birds move through SPAs.

We have expressed the value predicted to result in mortality from collision as a proportion of the UK or GB or GB & Ireland population as appropriate (as described above). This gives exactly the same proportion as would have been calculated for the proportion of the SPA total estimate had we used the method suggested by NE.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

6.7.18. This is an appropriate conclusion when considering displacement alone, but what about displacement when considered in combination with other impacts e.g. collision? Please see comments above regarding „additive‟ impacts.

Assessment of potential cumulative impacts is presented in Section 6.7 of this report.

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

7.7.43. Elsewhere the predicted displacement from Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Teesside is predicted to result in the mortality of between 0.87 and 1.04 (mean value 0.95) of the SPA‟s common guillemot i.e. potentially over 1% of the population. This contradicts the value given here.

These figures have been re-evaluated and clarified in this report (Section 6.6 and 7.7).

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

7.7.51. Given the impact from Dogger Bank Creyke Beck and Teesside, if additional displacement mortality values for the Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA‟s common guillemot population can be sourced for other OWF going forward (e.g. Hornsea 1, East Anglia 1), it is critical that these are presented in the final ES.

The in-combination impact on the common guillemot population of Flamborough Head and Bempton Cliffs SPA has taken account of available information in line with the assessment criteria set out in Section 7 of this report.

JNCC / NE Appendix A – HRA Screening Report – comments on English SPAs These additional comments on screening of relevant SPAs and features have been considered




O 1.9

Other concerns

General - Natural England has already provided comments regarding the HRA Screening Report regarding impacts on seabird colony SPAs during the breeding season. Below we provide additional comments on all remaining SPA features/times of year. We apologise for not providing this advice to Forewind sooner.

5.5.54/5.5.58. As post-breeding sandwich and little terns from the UK can disperse across the North Sea to e.g. the Netherlands, there may be grounds for initially scoping in sandwich and little tern SPAs to the north and west of the OWF into the HRA. However, we anticipate that these SPAs/features could be scoped out later in the HRA in the light of the low numbers of these species recorded at the site. Table 5.5. A number of potentially relevant English SPAs (some of which are also Ramsar sites) do not appear to have been included in the HRA screening report, and therefore have neither been screened in or out. These are either inland (e.g. Lower Derwent Valley SPA), on the south coast (Exe Estuary SPA) or on the west coast (e.g. Morecambe Bay SPA). These SPAs all potentially receive migratory birds which have crossed the North Sea and Dogger Bank OWF. Therefore we request clarification regarding why these sites have not been considered in the Screening Report, and sight of any evidence used when deciding not to include them (for example outputs from the SOSS-05 work). We can provide a full list of additional SPAs that may warrant inclusion in the Screening Report if that would be helpful. Please also note our comments regarding apportioning of impacts on migratory waterbirds to specific SPAs – undertaking the stepwise approach here may reveal that further SPAs should have been considered in the Screening Report..

Regarding the SPAs that have been assessed in Table 5.5., we raise the following potential issues:

Alde-Ore Estuary SPA – the wintering waterbird assemblage associated with this SPA does not appear to have been considered.

Benacre – Easton Broad SPA – it is unclear why wintering bittern has been screened out, please clarify.

Chichester & Langstone Harbour SPA/Poole Harbour SPA/Solent & Southampton Water SPAs – only breeding features for these SPAs are noted, but the site also has passage/wintering species and a wintering assemblage as qualifying features. These require consideration.

and incorporated into the revised screening process set out in the tables provided in Appendix C and Appendix D of this report.




Coquet Island SPA – as noted in our previous comments on the HRA Screening report, common tern should also be screened in for this SPA.

Crouch & Roach Estuaries SPA – it is unclear why this SPA‟s population of wintering dark-belled brent geese has been screened out, please clarify.

Dungeness & Pett Levels SPA – it is unclear why this SPA‟s population of wintering shoveler has been screened out, please clarify..

Pagham Harbour SPA - only breeding features of this SPA are noted, but the site also has wintering ruff and pintail as qualifying features, and should either be screened in or out.

Stour & Orwell Estuaries SPA – please justify screening out the wintering hen harrier population from further assessment

JNCC / NE

O 1.9

Other concerns

8.2.1 – Please see our comments above regarding potentially relevant sites that do not appear in Table 5.5 and therefore have neither scoped in or out: pending further assessment, some of these SPAs/Ramsar sites may require scoping in/out at the LSE test stage. In addition, Natural England notes that Benfleet & Southend Marshes SPA/Ramsar site appears to be included here in error: it is screened in within Table 6.1.

See comment above.




Planning Inspectorate

11.06.13

The Planning Inspectorate provided comments on the following main topics:

Study Area, Baseline and Methodology

The HRA Report does not clearly state whether the study area, baseline and methodology used to inform the HRA have been agreed with the SNCBs. If the proposed development is accepted for examination, it would assist the ExA if the HRA Report could include a statement as to whether or not these have been agreed with the SNCBs. If these have not been agreed with the SNCBs, an explanation should be provided within the HRA Report together with an explanation of the reason for the disagreements. Where this confirmation is not provided either in the HRA Report or a SoCG, the ExA is likely to request this clarification in their first round of examination questions.

Assessment of implications for European sites

As Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) requires the CA, in this case the relevant SoS, to ascertain whether the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), the applicant is required to provide information to assist the CA in reaching this conclusion and if necessary, the information to enable the CA to undertake an AA for each European site considered within the HRA.

The applicant‟s HRA appears to have considered SPA and Ramsar designations for the same site collectively rather than as two separate sites, as presented in the summary of the AA in the Tables within Appendix B of the AA Report (Summary of the AA findings for screened SPAs and Ramsar sites). The Inspectorate expects that where a site has both an SPA and Ramsar designation, these should be considered separately as the features of each site may differ. However, to avoid duplication, it may be appropriate to refer the reader to a comment made within the HRA Report regarding the corresponding designation for that site, where the same justification/evidence has been provided.

Conservation Objectives

Section 6.2 of the HRA Screening Report (Appendix A to the AA Report) recognises that conservation objectives are used as the basis from which management measures and monitoring programmes may be developed for the designated sites and are utilised to

Forewind noted the comments received from the Planning Inspectorate on the HRA Report in response to the consultation on the draft document.

In general, the comments were addressed through further clarification in the report and additional cross referencing to the supporting assessment chapters of the ES. In particular, it should be noted that responses received through previous statutory and non-statutory consultation on the survey methodologies and resultant baseline information presented, are generally summarised in the relevant ES chapter rather than being repeated in this report.

Findings for screened SPAs and Ramsar designations have been provided separately in the Appendix D of this report.




inform the AA of European sites, to ensure that the potential project effects are undertaken with reference to available site objectives (paragraph 6.2.2). However, whilst Tables 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 identify the European sites examined in the HRA pre-screening process, including the features for each European Site, the conservation objectives for each site have not been identified. Instead, the Inspectorate notes that section 6.2 of the HRA Screening Report states that “In order to deal with the large number of sites being assessed for LSE, a generic set of conservation objectives that typically apply to the types of features (Annex I habitats, Annex II species populations and SPA designated bird populations) have been used as a reference against which to determine whether LSE may arise. This approach also enables candidate SACs and potential SPAs, for which conservation objectives will not have been developed, to be screened” (paragraph 6.2.3 of the HRA Screening Report). This statement is repeated within the AA Report at paragraph 6.7.3.

As the requirement under Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations is to “make an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of that site‟s conservation objectives”, it is unclear how the applicant‟s approach to the assessment of the implications of the project against the generic set of conservation objectives satisfies this requirement. This should be explained in the HRA Report.

The AA Report states that “the Screening Report identified that the project was not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a number of European sites within UK waters and other European waters” (paragraph 1.3.5). However, this does not appear to be expressly stated in the HRA Screening Report for the European sites screened with a conclusion of likely significant effect (LSE) (please refer to Section 8.3 in the HRA Screening Report). The HRA Screening Report or AA Report should include a statement that for each of the European sites where a LSE has been identified, that the project assessed in the HRA is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of that site, in accordance with Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations.

Providing the screening and integrity matrices

The Inspectorate‟s Advice Note 10 includes screening and integrity matrices (see Appendix 1 and 2 respectively) that have been developed by the Inspectorate to assist the CA in fulfilling the requirements of the Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regulations in the context of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the 2008 Act) process. As the applicant has concluded within Table 8.1 in the HRA Screening Report (Appendix A to the AA Report)

Site specific conservation objectives have been used in the assessment. European Site conservation objectives for English SPAs, as given by Natural England, are generic but obviously apply to individual designated features. These generic conservation objectives are quoted in this report and assessment undertaken with respect to them for the individual features screened into the assessment.

A statement to reflect this requirement is provided in this report (Section 3).

The requested matrices have also been completed




LSE for a number of European sites, located both within the UK and other EEA States, the Inspectorate expects to see both the screening and integrity matrices includes within the applicant‟s Screening Report (HRA Appendix A, with regard to the screening matrices) and the AA Report (with regard to the Integrity matrices).

as part of the submission and cross referencing has been incorporated as advised by the Planning Inspectorate.

Documents

HRA Appendix B Responses to all consultation comments ...... · Forewind Document Reference F-OFC-RP-002 Appendix B Issue Number 1 Date August 2013 Drafted by Royal Haskoning DHV